|
Keenan wrote:
I think this is the answer: http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew/images/unknown.jpg Keenan, it seems that when we get to the end of your argument, that you always end up at the same spot! All the prior arguments, however well presented, are trumped by this last, and they are not really the issue, at least for you. You make noises like they are important, but then you play your trump card. Like somehow we should be intimidated, but in fact you are playing to our strength. You still haven't figured it out! As a liberal, you may not like the demographics of our country, but until you can deal with them you will be relegated to increasing insignificance. The problem with that is we really do need your perspective to stay relevant, so that the important issues of the environment, and other social issues do not get lost in history. To keep from getting lost, you need a compass, and conservatives have found that the compass of moral values works for them. Liberals seem to be wandering around with no sense of direction. IMO that is why folks did not vote for them! Personally, I would encourage you to know that those of us who live down here in Jesusland, do not eat our liberal neighbors. In fact we would encourage you to join us as so many others have. Jesus tells us to love our neighbors and our enemies. Now I do not consider you my enemy, in fact, you are one of those warm, fuzzy, cuddily Canadians, that are hard to hate. So know that I love you in Jesus!!! That may be harder to swallow than if you had drunk a Cernobyl Cocktail, a Love Canal Float, a chopped old growth forest salad, a polluted Lake Superior Soup, and a roadcut Rocky Mtn steak! But God Loves you, and I Love you with Jesus' love! And I forgive you for being a Liberal! Thanks, Tinkerntom, aka KnesisKnosis, Life, Live it! |
Hi again Keenan, I'll try to address issues you brought up in this
post Your reference to Puritanism, seems to be rooted in the gay rights issue. I wonder if you are "out" and feeling threatened, or is this just a hypothetical discussion for you. Now maybe that is not a PC question to ask, so feel free to ignore it if you choose. Isn't choice great! The Puritans came here inorder to exercise free choice, and in so doing, chose to live in a land where others chose differently. However it is also a democratic land where the majority rules, and the minority is protected from the tyranny of the majority, by the courts. The Majority is currently identified as the moral mojority, and so is opposed to the immoral minority. I am not saying that this is true or right, just that it is reality. The minority, now has the choice, of dealing with it, or slinking away. I admire you that you are not slinking! That things are difficult for you, no doubt! We were there for a long time, and only recently have rallied the troops to take significant ground. Now is not the time for us to get lazy either. We will keep pressing on, and you can choose to get onboard or not. That is your choice! Our choice is that we do not want to have Gay Marriages blighting the landscape, nor wanton abortion polluting our collective conscious. Regarding blacks feeling intimidated at the polling place, I feel that is generally a bogus charge. There may be places this occurs, it is a big country, but I am sure we would have heard more, if it was rampant. But it sure sounds politically powerful. And there is the core of the problem for Liberals. They keep trying to find some magic bullet to propel themselves into power, without really having a viable platform. Now that would be really hijacking the election, if they could have pulled it off, like feeding bogus exit polls to their sheep, which made them feel real good for awhile, but the let down was a real bummer. Of course if you can blame it on some "old white dudes," hey, what a coup. Keep on believeing this BS, if it makes you feel better. Mm. Only y'all ain't born with equality of opportunity. But I spose that's just some crackpot liberal thinkin' there eh? For a change, I think you got it right, sort of! We obviously are not born with equal opportunity, but then that is not what the Constitution is talking about. The Constitution says that we are all born equal, and that there are certain inalienable rights. Health care, or driving a Rolls, and living in Aspen, is not one of them. I live in Colorado, but not Aspen. I drive a hardly rolls, and I have to pay for my own health insurance. I have a black neighbor who has a newer car, - a management job, that I expect provides insurance, and both of us could go up to ski in Aspen. Ain't America great, independent of our skin color, we can go any place we choose. The only thing that really holds us back, is our own vision of who we are and where we want to be! Luckily most voters realized that the above program is unacceptable, if for no other reason, than who was going to pay for it? The promise was that taxes would be raised on the rich. That works until there are no more rich, and then they come after you and me, or at least me! No thankyou! LOL. Again, y'all were sayin' somethin' 'bout settin' up a false dilemma? I am self-employed, which means I get to pay all my own taxes, and I know how much I pay. I have paid a lot for a long time, and I am not rich. I would not mind being rich, mind you, then I could maybe afford to take a vacation or move up to Canada. But then I would spoil it for you, and that luckily for you, is not a false dilemna. Similiarly, enviro issues are presented in the same way. If we sneak it under the radar, make enough distracting noise, noone will realize the finacial costs of these programs. The problem, is that we have fallen for this before, and noone was buying it this time. Especially considering that for the last 30 or 40 years Nader and his crowd, have been singing the same song, but tell us the problems remain. That is why he was ignored this time more than ever before. The fact that Kerry, gave lipservice, to pacify the eco-warriors, only proves that they are easily distracted! Uh. Whatever all that means. The environment IS the economy. It just ain't rightly recognized as such by certain folk. Clueless in Canada, the fact that you don't get what that means, only shows how much out of contact you are with the issues that are important to the majority of US voters. The environment is "not" the economy, it is only a part of the economy. In a previous election, we were told that "It is the economy, Stupid!" The Dems are still singing the same song, but the band has moved on! The economy is always important, it is just what the money is going to be spent on, and how, that changes. OK, well, back to regular programming. And that is a big part of the problem, is that liberals have fallen back on their regular programming that worked for them in the 70's, failing to update their prime time offerings. Any TV station that did that would not last from one season to the next, how is it that the Dems think they can go for decades without changing, their song and dance! Thanks, Tinkerntom, aka KnesisKnosis, Life, Live it! |
|
riverman, I think you are beginning to get it.
I appreciate your conversing, not accusing and blaming. Also full thoughts help the conversation instead of snip-its. Know that I am not ignoring you or environmental impacts. Right now I ran out of time, so more later! Thanks, Tinkerntom, aka KnesisKnosis, Life, Live it! |
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message m... Keenan wrote: I think this is the answer: http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew/images/unknown.jpg Keenan, it seems that when we get to the end of your argument, that you always end up at the same spot! Which is...? All the prior arguments, however well presented, are trumped by this last, and they are not really the issue, at least for you. You make noises like they are important, but then you play your trump card. Like somehow we should be intimidated, but in fact you are playing to our strength. You still haven't figured it out! I can't even figure out what that paragraph is supposed to mean. As a liberal Which is...? you may not like the demographics of our country, but until you can deal with them you will be relegated to increasing insignificance. I'm not even in your country. The problem with that is we really do need your perspective to stay relevant, so that the important issues of the environment, and other social issues do not get lost in history. The fact that George W got RE-elected shows that most of you are already lost. To keep from getting lost, you need a compass, and conservatives have found that the compass of moral values works for them. Everyone has moral values. What you mean is simplistic mantras based in hate and fear. And yes, it works, if you have the right audience. Liberals seem to be wandering around with no sense of direction. IMO that is why folks did not vote for them! Again, I don't know what you mean by "liberals" but yes, I can see that your Democratic party, wihch is actually quite conservative in my view, doesn't know what to do in face of the popularity of hate-based and fear-based politics. Personally, I would encourage you to know that those of us who live down here in Jesusland, do not eat our liberal neighbors. In fact we would encourage you to join us as so many others have. Jesus tells us to love our neighbors and our enemies. Jesus apparently tells y'all to do all sorts of things. I don't blame Jesus for the Bush administration. Now I do not consider you my enemy, in fact, you are one of those warm, fuzzy, cuddily Canadians, that are hard to hate. Give me time. So know that I love you in Jesus!!! That's usually what y'all say before you light someone on fire or pull the switch on the 'lectric chair. That may be harder to swallow than if you had drunk a Cernobyl Cocktail, a Love Canal Float, a chopped old growth forest salad, a polluted Lake Superior Soup, and a roadcut Rocky Mtn steak! But God Loves you, and I Love you with Jesus' love! And I forgive you for being a Liberal! You should be aware that a Liberal in Canada means a member or supporter of the Liberal party, which is really not very liberal at all. Actually, I'd be really interested in knowing what "liberal" means to you. |
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message m... Hi again Keenan, I'll try to address issues you brought up in this post Your reference to Puritanism, seems to be rooted in the gay rights issue. Also abortion. And censorsihp. I wonder if you are "out" and feeling threatened, or is this just a hypothetical discussion for you. Now maybe that is not a PC question to ask, so feel free to ignore it if you choose. As it happens, I am not gay, but hatred against gay people is not "hypothetical" for me any more than racism against black people or unequal pay for women is "hypothetical." Isn't choice great! The Puritans came here inorder to exercise free choice, and in so doing, chose to live in a land where others chose differently. However it is also a democratic land where the majority rules, and the minority is protected from the tyranny of the majority, by the courts. Much to the chagrin of George and friends who are furious that the courts occasionally strike down some of their puritanical efforts. But a few changes to the courts, and whammo, the powers of hate will have the congress, the senate, the presidency, and the courts! The Majority is currently identified as the moral mojority, and so is opposed to the immoral minority. I am not saying that this is true or right, just that it is reality. Whatever that means. The minority, now has the choice, of dealing with it, or slinking away. I admire you that you are not slinking! That things are difficult for you, no doubt! We were there for a long time, and only recently have rallied the troops to take significant ground. Now is not the time for us to get lazy either. We will keep pressing on, and you can choose to get onboard or not. That is your choice! Um. Half of your own country is not on board, and just about all of the rest of the world is not on board. And you are not going to convince me to hate people just because a lot of you have gotten your **** together with the hatred of others as your focus. Our choice is that we do not want to have Gay Marriages blighting the landscape What is your problem with gay marriages? nor wanton abortion polluting our collective conscious. But you are OK with young girls in the alley with coat hangers, right? Will you find a way to deny rich people access to abortions too, or is this another in your list of policies designed to advance hate against the less fortunate. Regarding blacks feeling intimidated at the polling place, I feel that is generally a bogus charge. Blacks feel intimidated at all sorts of places in America, the polling booth certainly being one of the places where said intimidation is at its best. There may be places this occurs, it is a big country, but I am sure we would have heard more, if it was rampant. From who? Fox News!?!? But it sure sounds politically powerful. And there is the core of the problem for Liberals. They keep trying to find some magic bullet to propel themselves into power, without really having a viable platform. Now that would be really hijacking the election, if they could have pulled it off, like feeding bogus exit polls to their sheep, which made them feel real good for awhile, but the let down was a real bummer. Of course if you can blame it on some "old white dudes," hey, what a coup. Keep on believeing this BS, if it makes you feel better. No idea what you are talking about there, but you do realize that the election was a rather close one, and that it is going to be difficult to keep people in a state of perpetual fear, or even another four years? Even Americans will get bored with the so-called "war on terror." Mm. Only y'all ain't born with equality of opportunity. But I spose that's just some crackpot liberal thinkin' there eh? For a change, I think you got it right, sort of! We obviously are not born with equal opportunity Praise geezus. but then that is not what the Constitution is talking about. The Constitution says that we are all born equal Then the Constitution is wrong. You might want to fix it. I think you fixed up some other parts that were wrong. Like the value of a black person? That sort of thing. and that there are certain inalienable rights. Health care, or driving a Rolls, and living in Aspen, is not one of them. What about the right to put all your money offshore and not pay even as much tax as the poorest person? live in Colorado, but not Aspen. I drive a hardly rolls, and I have to pay for my own health insurance. I have a black neighbor who has a newer car, - a management job, that I expect provides insurance, and both of us could go up to ski in Aspen. Ain't America great, independent of our skin color, we can go any place we choose. The only thing that really holds us back, is our own vision of who we are and where we want to be! Too put it bluntly, that's an idiotic oversimplification. Your kids, or the kids born to your neighbour, are not going to have the same barriers to success as some kid growing up in a **** poor neighbourhood where the police are afraid to go and the school is a war zone. It's easy to have a nice vision when you are starting from the top of the mountain. Luckily most voters realized that the above program is unacceptable, if for no other reason, than who was going to pay for it? The promise was that taxes would be raised on the rich. That works until there are no more rich, and then they come after you and me, or at least me! No thankyou! LOL. Again, y'all were sayin' somethin' 'bout settin' up a false dilemma? I am self-employed, which means I get to pay all my own taxes, and I know how much I pay. I have paid a lot for a long time, and I am not rich. I would not mind being rich, mind you, then I could maybe afford to take a vacation or move up to Canada. But then I would spoil it for you, and that luckily for you, is not a false dilemna. You should come up here. See if you can pick out the gay married people from the gay unmarried people the straight unmarried people and the straight married people. Similiarly, enviro issues are presented in the same way. If we sneak it under the radar, make enough distracting noise, noone will realize the finacial costs of these programs. The problem, is that we have fallen for this before, and noone was buying it this time. Especially considering that for the last 30 or 40 years Nader and his crowd, have been singing the same song, but tell us the problems remain. That is why he was ignored this time more than ever before. The fact that Kerry, gave lipservice, to pacify the eco-warriors, only proves that they are easily distracted! Uh. Whatever all that means. The environment IS the economy. It just ain't rightly recognized as such by certain folk. Clueless in Canada, the fact that you don't get what that means, only shows how much out of contact you are with the issues that are important to the majority of US voters. The environment is "not" the economy, it is only a part of the economy. In a previous election, we were told that "It is the economy, Stupid!" The Dems are still singing the same song, but the band has moved on! The economy is always important, it is just what the money is going to be spent on, and how, that changes. I have no idea what that is all supposed to mean, and I don't think you do either. It sounds like one of George W's speeches. You know, the ones where the sheep in the audience look all confused until they get the signal to clap at the end? OK, well, back to regular programming. And that is a big part of the problem, is that liberals have fallen back on their regular programming that worked for them in the 70's, failing to update their prime time offerings. Any TV station that did that would not last from one season to the next, how is it that the Dems think they can go for decades without changing, their song and dance! Have you in the past - or do you currently - take hallucinogenic drugs? I know this is a personal question, but hey, you asked me if I was gay! |
"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message .. . "Michael Daly" wrote in message ... On 15-Nov-2004, Brian Nystrom wrote: You can dump on Keenan all you want, but dumping on Canada needs proof. :-) Mike I AM CANADIAN! ==================== We know. Stupidity, like hot air seems to be rising.... |
Keenan Wellar wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message m... Hi again Keenan, I'll try to address issues you brought up in this post Your reference to Puritanism, seems to be rooted in the gay rights issue. Also abortion. And censorsihp. And euthanasia, pornography, prostitution, soft drugs use etc. etc.. Let's make people criminals for doing something that others don't want and therefore want to forbid everyone else from doing. I wonder if you are "out" and feeling threatened, or is this just a hypothetical discussion for you. Now maybe that is not a PC question to ask, so feel free to ignore it if you choose. As it happens, I am not gay, but hatred against gay people is not "hypothetical" for me any more than racism against black people or unequal pay for women is "hypothetical." Not to mention the unequal rights for women as promoted by the religious right: women belong at home, taking care of the children. Geez! Isn't choice great! The Puritans came here inorder to exercise free choice, and in so doing, chose to live in a land where others chose differently. However it is also a democratic land where the majority rules, and the minority is protected from the tyranny of the majority, by the courts. Much to the chagrin of George and friends who are furious that the courts occasionally strike down some of their puritanical efforts. But a few changes to the courts, and whammo, the powers of hate will have the congress, the senate, the presidency, and the courts! Yeah, already there is not much left to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority, except a lot of money to afford expensive lawyers who know how to talk a bent stick straight, let alone to protect the maority from an extreme right wing minority who have the government's ear. Democracy my ass. (if a majority vote in this so called democracy was indeed all it took, why did the Democrats lose the previous presidential election even though they had so many thousands more votes? Why does a democracy need propaganda, censorship of the media, police state "laws" and police disruption of peaceful protests and so on?) The minority, now has the choice, of dealing with it, or slinking away. I admire you that you are not slinking! That things are difficult for you, no doubt! We were there for a long time, and only recently have rallied the troops to take significant ground. Now is not the time for us to get lazy either. We will keep pressing on, and you can choose to get onboard or not. That is your choice! Um. Half of your own country is not on board, and just about all of the rest of the world is not on board. And you are not going to convince me to hate people just because a lot of you have gotten your **** together with the hatred of others as your focus. Make that less than a quarter of his own country: if the potential voters make up half the U.S. population, and if only a majority of those potential voters actually takes the trouble to go and vote, with just over half of the actual voters voting for one candidate, then that candidate gets less than half of one half of the population behind him. Our choice is that we do not want to have Gay Marriages blighting the landscape What is your problem with gay marriages? nor wanton abortion polluting our collective conscious. But you are OK with young girls in the alley with coat hangers, right? Will you find a way to deny rich people access to abortions too, or is this another in your list of policies designed to advance hate against the less fortunate. Or people killing other innocent people because the government wants to wage another war somewhere far away against an imaginary foe. Regarding blacks feeling intimidated at the polling place, I feel that is generally a bogus charge. Blacks feel intimidated at all sorts of places in America, the polling booth certainly being one of the places where said intimidation is at its best. I wonder why there are so few black boaters in the U.S., despite the population of the U.S. being something like 15% black? But it sure sounds politically powerful. And there is the core of the problem for Liberals. They keep trying to find some magic bullet to propel themselves into power, without really having a viable platform. Sounds like you just described the current government's approach to staying in power to a point... No idea what you are talking about there, but you do realize that the election was a rather close one, and that it is going to be difficult to keep people in a state of perpetual fear, or even another four years? Even Americans will get bored with the so-called "war on terror." Don't underestimate the herd animal mentality... :-( and that there are certain inalienable rights. Health care, or driving a Rolls, and living in Aspen, is not one of them. What about the right to put all your money offshore and not pay even as much tax as the poorest person? live in Colorado, but not Aspen. I drive a hardly rolls, and I have to pay for my own health insurance. I have a black neighbor who has a newer car, - a management job, that I expect provides insurance, and both of us could go up to ski in Aspen. Ain't America great, independent of our skin color, we can go any place we choose. The only thing that really holds us back, is our own vision of who we are and where we want to be! How many black people are in that same position? Talking about discrimination... one exception does prove the rule. I am self-employed, which means I get to pay all my own taxes, and I know how much I pay. I have paid a lot for a long time, and I am not rich. I would not mind being rich, mind you, then I could maybe afford to take a vacation or move up to Canada. But then I would spoil it for you, and that luckily for you, is not a false dilemna. You should come up here. See if you can pick out the gay married people from the gay unmarried people the straight unmarried people and the straight married people. Well said! OK, well, back to regular programming. And that is a big part of the problem, is that liberals have fallen back on their regular programming that worked for them in the 70's, failing to update their prime time offerings. Any TV station that did that would not last from one season to the next, how is it that the Dems think they can go for decades without changing, their song and dance! Have you in the past - or do you currently - take hallucinogenic drugs? I know this is a personal question, but hey, you asked me if I was gay! big grin -- Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe ---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.--- http://wilko.webzone.ru/ |
As it is now, the war against terrorism is inefficient an ineffective
causing many innocent deaths and making things worse instead of better. And with the existence of the concentration camp in Guantanamo Bay, the state has become the enemy and is creating new seeds for more terrorism in all the world. Ask the thousand dead insurgents how inefficient and ineffective the US battle plan is. Granted, there were probably innocents killed Probably??? even the American soldiers who die there can be called innocent... But that view may be (too) Liberal for you? |
"rick etter" wrote in message hlink.net...
"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message .. . "Michael Daly" wrote in message ... On 15-Nov-2004, Brian Nystrom wrote: You can dump on Keenan all you want, but dumping on Canada needs proof. :-) Mike I AM CANADIAN! ==================== We know. Stupidity, like hot air seems to be rising.... Thanks Rick, I needed that! TnT |
|
Keenan wrote:
Do you think so? It's hard to say. The media censorship is unbelievable. You would hardly know any Americans have been killed! Ah, maybe I have stumbled upon the problem, "media Censorship." Now I haven't heard of such down here,(certainly there are many voices reminding us of how many have been killed and wounded) so you must be speaking of up there in Canada. That is unbelievable for sure, I thought those Canadians were a little tolerant of diverse viewpoints, but then that would also esplain the rampant Liberalism that plagues our dear neighbor to the north. Isolated, uninformed, intolerant, Liberals, - yeah, that explains it! War is a terrible thing, noone likes it! So lay down their weapons of destruction, and learn to live in peace. Who are we talking about? I was speaking of the criminal mobs that are bombing their own, in the name of Allah. Who are you talking about? Probably the US troops, who are risking their lives, to set the people free from the tyranny of war lords. Who have had their way for centuries of warfare that have been going on there. The current US troops just happen to be in their way at this time, fighting to win and guarantee the peace for all. Concentration Camp in Cuba? Yes I read about the 40 some musicians who sought refuge in this country, just yesterday. Must be a terrible place to have to live, I mean in this country. I will admit that my collective conscious feels uneasy about the detainees in the camp in Guantanamo Bay. However they are a far cry from Dachow Ah, well, that's OK then! I am glad that you agree that it is Ok, at least we agree on this! Thanks, Tinkerntom, aka Knesisknosis, Life, Live it! |
"Keenan Wellar" ) writes: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message Constitution is talking about. The Constitution says that we are all born equal Then the Constitution is wrong. You might want to fix it. I think you fixed up some other parts that were wrong. Like the value of a black person? That sort of thing. I'd like to jump in here to address a popular misonception. The Bible says "all men are created equal in the eyes of God". It just means that every person is born with what some religuous beliefs call a soul and can get into Heaven. It has nothing to do with genetics, social status, or government legislation and enforcement. It's like another Amercian myth that any boy can grow up to be President. I had the advantage of living in the USA for a few years, graduating from an Amercian high scool. There is quite a difference in what people are taught in Canadian and American schools and in their outlook and opinions as adults. The attitude of superiority taught in Amercian schools is much more like what is taught in England than what is taught in Canada. It's not unexpected as anyone who lucks into power and weath usually comes to think they are smarter or better educated or something, supported by compliments by others. Because we have so many abundant natural resources in Canada we live well in spite of the enourmous mistakes made by business and government, not because of their wisdom and ability which si no better than elsewhere, and because of the abundance of resources, tends to be more wasteful than elsewhere. On the subject of preserving wilderness, in Canada we have more of it but we are not doing any better than the Amercians in protecting or restoring it, especially waterways in and around settled areas. We only get interested in it when we think it will attract American tourist dollars to areas of low employment. That happens after the mine has closed or the profitable trees have been cut. It's a kind of natural progression, like moving west. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ William R Watt National Capital FreeNet Ottawa's free community network homepage: www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm warning: non-FreeNet email must have "notspam" in subject or it's returned |
William R. Watt ) writes: ....We only get interested in it when we think it will attract American tourist dollars to areas of low employment. That happens after the mine has closed or the profitable trees have been cut. so sorry, I forgot the fish. My sincere appologies to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador which has been spending so much money it doesn't have on TV ads in the United States, and to all of you Amercian kayak paddlers who have left the pollution of your own waterways to come to Newfoundland and Labrador with your Amercian tourist dollars to paddle the scenic fished out rocky coasts. God bless you every one. :) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ William R Watt National Capital FreeNet Ottawa's free community network homepage: www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm warning: non-FreeNet email must have "notspam" in subject or it's returned |
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message ... "riverman" wrote in message ... "Keenan Wellar" wrote in message news:BDBEFAF0.11A56% As long as Bush can keep 50%+ of Americans in a perpetual state of fear and violence and effectively pander to hatred, I don't think the Dems have a chance. I choose to include Keenans complete paragraph, which you conviently edited! Keenan wrote: "As long as Bush can keep 50%+ of Americans in a perpetual state of fear and violence and effectively pander to hatred, I don't think the Dems have a chance. However, I would agree that their campaign was terrible, it all started with Kerry's bizarre and useless speech at the convention." Unfortunately, despite the fear that Bush has generated, I think the Dems don't stand a chance for awhile anyway. Tinkertom's posts are an excellent example of why: The why, is not my reveling, which is a result of their loss. The why they lost is pointed out by Keenan, "their campaign was terrible, it all started with Kerry's bizarre and useless speech at the convention." Now if Bush, can keep 50%+ of Americans in fear... then I would think the enlightened Liberals could easily calm and pacify their fears. It seems though, all the Dems did was succede in milling about like a bunch of sheep without a shepherd. he clearly is reveling (as are many of the now-identifiable Conservative Fundamentalist Republicans...CFRs) in the newfound divisions in our society. Its what I call (from my college days) "Frat Boy mentality". A group of people get the wind in their sails, and no matter how ridiculous and arcane their group mentality is, it gets momentum and steamrolls everything else out of the way until the momentum finally dies out from within. Its like a bunch of drunk frat boys at a party, thinking they are going to save the world. I'm glad to see that you like my CFR. I figured that it would play nicely in some conspiracy theory! Have fun, and be distracted! Some of Tinkertom's generalizations are all too loudly supported by the new political majority in the US; riverman, I think you are getting it. Finally! There is a new show in town! But then you had to write the following, and ruined it all.. Tinkerntom: I just spent the better part of the last hour reading and rereading all your posts here, and I am completely undecided about how sincere you are. You are either an astounding simpleton, completely unaware of the contradictions and doublespeak you are endorsing, or else you are a fairly crafty troll, or else you have found an obvious tender topic and are just probing it for malicious fun. I can find evidence for all of these, but I cannot find any evidence that you are a thinking person, making your own judgements about world or domestic affairs based on your own observations or reflections. You seem to be parroting every possible point-of-view that has been offered you by the spinmasters in DC, or in your local church (although less of the latter). In any case, I think any discussion with you is pretty futile, as you have pretty clearly stated that anything which you don't really understand falls in the realm of 'Liberal elite intellectualism'. That rules out any possiblity of bringing up anything at all that doesn't already fit into your mindset. Enjoy your trolling, and the best part is that the emotions and concern you generate by your vocalizations might be enough to get even MORE people who oppose the CRF agenda to get involved in 2 years. Just try not to trash the house too badly while your party is renting it out....others might want to make some use of it once we get the current residents evicted. --riverman |
Well Keenan, I'll try again to clarify a few of these issues.
You continue to mention the puritans, and I got to thinking that you being in Canada have a different view of them than we down here in the Colonies. They were the religious fanatics of the day, that incited the riot we call the fight for independence. Of course to us they are just a bunch of nice folks who wear funny hats, and eat turkey. This would also suggest why you have a problem with the Constitution, and think it got things wrong, and should be redone. You are still licking your wounds over that little fracus back in 1776. Sorry you lost that one too! Also abortion. And censorsihp. Abortion has been discussed before, but censorship is new. Who got censored? As it happens, I am not gay, but hatred against gay people is not "hypothetical" for me any more than racism against black people or unequal pay for women is "hypothetical." What happens to you in US politics is all Hypothetical to you. It is not to those of us who live here. Isn't choice great! The Puritans came here inorder to exercise free choice, and in so doing, chose to live in a land where others chose differently. However it is also a democratic land where the majority rules, and the minority is protected from the tyranny of the majority, by the courts. Much to the chagrin of George and friends who are furious that the courts occasionally strike down some of their puritanical efforts. But a few changes to the courts, and whammo, the powers of hate will have the congress, the senate, the presidency, and the courts! I'm glad that you saw what I said about the courts. They have proven through the years to be a moderating factor in US politics. So the Constitution does work, and there is hope for the Dems, and the forest! and you! The Majority is currently identified as the moral mojority, and so is opposed to the immoral minority. I am not saying that this is true or right, just that it is reality. Whatever that means. Think about it, maybe you will eventually get it. The minority, now has the choice, of dealing with it, or slinking away. I admire you that you are not slinking! That things are difficult for you, no doubt! We were there for a long time, and only recently have rallied the troops to take significant ground. Now is not the time for us to get lazy either. We will keep pressing on, and you can choose to get onboard or not. That is your choice! Um. Half of your own country is not on board, and just about all of the rest of the world is not on board. And you are not going to convince me to hate people just because a lot of you have gotten your **** together with the hatred of others as your focus. All your counts don't count in US politics. The only poll that counts is the one on Nov 2, and is only valid for four years! Our choice is that we do not want to have Gay Marriages blighting the landscape What is your problem with gay marriages? Asked and Answered, you still don't get it! nor wanton abortion polluting our collective conscious. again Asked and Answered! But you are OK with young girls in the alley with coat hangers, right? Of course not, but what a false dilemna. Before Roe v. Wade, there were probably some coat hanger abortions. But not nearly the number of abortions that go on today. Ironically, I heard that the majority of babies aborted would probably have been raised in a Liberal home, and would have swollen your voting ranks now by 20 million. The Dems could have used those votes, and would have defeated Bush. You have cut yourself off at the knees. Will you find a way to deny rich people access to abortions too, or is this another in your list of policies designed to advance hate against the less fortunate. The rich have money to go where they want, to do what ever they want. They aren't going to planned parenthood clinics for an abortion. However, we do not choose to have the bill footed by Uncle Sam either. If the less fortunate can't afford an abortion, let them figure out how to keep from getting pregnant. You know it still is a mystery. Regarding blacks feeling intimidated at the polling place, I feel that is generally a bogus charge. Blacks feel intimidated at all sorts of places in America, the polling booth certainly being one of the places where said intimidation is at its best. There may be places this occurs, it is a big country, but I am sure we would have heard more, if it was rampant. From who? Fox News!?!? But it sure sounds politically powerful. And there is the core of the problem for Liberals. They keep trying to find some magic bullet to propel themselves into power, without really having a viable platform. Now that would be really hijacking the election, if they could have pulled it off, like feeding bogus exit polls to their sheep, which made them feel real good for awhile, but the let down was a real bummer. Of course if you can blame it on some "old white dudes," hey, what a coup. Keep on believeing this BS, if it makes you feel better. No idea what you are talking about there, Again Clueless! but you do realize that the election was a rather close one, and that it is going to be difficult to keep people in a state of perpetual fear, or even another four years? Even Americans will get bored with the so-called "war on terror." Mm. Only y'all ain't born with equality of opportunity. But I spose that's just some crackpot liberal thinkin' there eh? For a change, I think you got it right, sort of! We obviously are not born with equal opportunity Praise geezus. but then that is not what the Constitution is talking about. The Constitution says that we are all born equal Then the Constitution is wrong. You might want to fix it. I think you fixed up some other parts that were wrong. Like the value of a black person? That sort of thing. and that there are certain inalienable rights. Health care, or driving a Rolls, and living in Aspen, is not one of them. What about the right to put all your money offshore and not pay even as much tax as the poorest person? live in Colorado, but not Aspen. I drive a hardly rolls, and I have to pay for my own health insurance. I have a black neighbor who has a newer car, - a management job, that I expect provides insurance, and both of us could go up to ski in Aspen. Ain't America great, independent of our skin color, we can go any place we choose. The only thing that really holds us back, is our own vision of who we are and where we want to be! Too put it bluntly, that's an idiotic oversimplification. Your kids, or the kids born to your neighbour, are not going to have the same barriers to success as some kid growing up in a **** poor neighbourhood where the police are afraid to go and the school is a war zone. It's easy to have a nice vision when you are starting from the top of the mountain. I am hardly at the top of the mountain, but as I understand it, anyone who really wants to can climb the mountain. That is what made the US unique! and people come still everyday, and are willing to do whatever it takes to stay. Luckily most voters realized that the above program is unacceptable, if for no other reason, than who was going to pay for it? The promise was that taxes would be raised on the rich. That works until there are no more rich, and then they come after you and me, or at least me! No thankyou! LOL. Again, y'all were sayin' somethin' 'bout settin' up a false dilemma? It is not a false dilemna, kerry said, he was going to raise the taxes on the rich. Now you said earlier, that the rich don't pay taxes, because they put them off shore. As if raising the amount due will encourage them to bring their investments back on shore. That would mean, Kerry would not be able to raise the promised taxes to support the promised programs, so they would fail, unless he raise taxes on me. I don't have off shore investments. The best I could hope for is that Uncle Sam would take money from one of my pockets, and put it back in another. This of course after he took his cut. Then all these programs would fire up inflation, which is nothing more than a hidden tax as my dollar buys less. Now I am sure you will probably say Huh! so maybe we will talk more about that later. I am self-employed, which means I get to pay all my own taxes, and I know how much I pay. I have paid a lot for a long time, and I am not rich. I would not mind being rich, mind you, then I could maybe afford to take a vacation or move up to Canada. But then I would spoil it for you, and that luckily for you, is not a false dilemna. You should come up here. See if you can pick out the gay married people from the gay unmarried people the straight unmarried people and the straight married people. I never claimed that I could pick out gays from staight, married or unmarried. Unless I see two or more of them convorting together, and then there is no doubt that all could ID them! So what is the point? This line of reason does not make me want to have gay marriages in my community. If gays want to live together, that is up to them, but we do not have to sanction them as a married couple. Similiarly, enviro issues are presented in the same way. If we sneak it under the radar, make enough distracting noise, noone will realize the finacial costs of these programs. The problem, is that we have fallen for this before, and noone was buying it this time. Especially considering that for the last 30 or 40 years Nader and his crowd, have been singing the same song, but tell us the problems remain. That is why he was ignored this time more than ever before. The fact that Kerry, gave lipservice, to pacify the eco-warriors, only proves that they are easily distracted! Uh. Whatever all that means. The environment IS the economy. It just ain't rightly recognized as such by certain folk. Clueless in Canada, the fact that you don't get what that means, only shows how much out of contact you are with the issues that are important to the majority of US voters. The environment is "not" the economy, it is only a part of the economy. In a previous election, we were told that "It is the economy, Stupid!" The Dems are still singing the same song, but the band has moved on! The economy is always important, it is just what the money is going to be spent on, and how, that changes. I have no idea what that is all supposed to mean, and I don't think you do either. It sounds like one of George W's speeches. You know, the ones where the sheep in the audience look all confused until they get the signal to clap at the end? OK, well, back to regular programming. And that is a big part of the problem, is that liberals have fallen back on their regular programming that worked for them in the 70's, failing to update their prime time offerings. Any TV station that did that would not last from one season to the next, how is it that the Dems think they can go for decades without changing, their song and dance! Thanks for the Dance, Tinkerntom, aka Knesisknosis, Life, Live it! |
Brian Nystrom scribbled:
Keenan Wellar wrote: [snip] There's a big difference between civil rights and the socialist agenda being pushed by the left. Socialist my ass. The Democrats?!?!? Geezus man, they are so far from socialist it ain't funny. Unlike Republicans who want more guns and more jesus as the answer to every problem, the Democrats seem willing to actually consider that there might be other answers. But socialists? I can't see how people can think that applies. Then you're blind. Democrats are the party of BIG government, BIG social programs, BIG entitlements and "cradle to grave" government care. Give them all your money and your freedoms and they'll take care of you for life. That's about as socialist as one can get. Actually, this is not remotely true. New Yorkers receive an average return (in services) of $0.68 on every dollar paid in Federal taxes. Los Angelinos receive $0.73 (and that return includes benefits accrued to every company that evades taxes and takes advantage of "loophole" subsidies). Residents of "red" states (actually, the "red" *counties* of the "red" states) receive an average of $1.70 in various farm subsidies, water subsidies, grazing rights, jobs in mine-giveaway and forest-products-giveaway businesses, Federal infrastructure-building... The Republicans consistantly harp on "reducing Big Gubmint" as a campaign theme. During the Bush administration the size of the Federal Gubmint has grown; during the Clinton administration it shrank. Go figger. The Republicans will never cut the programs that provide jobs or lower commodity and services costs for the heartland "conservatives". They would prefer to (hypocritically) subsidize a farm family that votes *against* Big Gubmint than to provide food and heating oil for the children of a single mom (so what if Mom is a dirtbag; I'm talking about her children here -- but Christians don't understand such fine distinctions) in a big city. Personally, I don't mind subsidizing the heartland counties, but then, I'm a "big gubmint" liberal, and compassionate enough to want to care for my fellow Americans in the depressed areas, even if they are stupid, uneducated, and hypocritical enough to vote *against* the very Big Gubmint that sustains them. There is not an economist in the country who will tell you (with a straight face) that the Republicans are fiscally conservative (that's why I am no longer a Republican.) They will maintain the programs that sustain the rednecks, to keep their voting base, and they will maintain the anti-free-market policies that sustain the corporations, to keep their financial base. What the Republicans ARE is SOCIALLY conservative, and that is like ****ing in the wind; society will change whether they want it to or not. People will use dope whether it is legal or not. Homos will screw homos whether the good Christians like it or not. And women will get abortions, whether they are legal or not. The only way they can keep society from changing socially is to institute police-state tactics (where is John Ashcroft when we need him?) and to keep NeoCons in power by keeping the Terrorist Alert level up there around Orange to keep people frightened, whether there is any proximate cause or not. As for health care, it's long past time that people realize that health care is not a "right", never has been one and shouldn't be one. Despite the flaws in our system, we still have the best health care in the world, as evidenced by the number of people who still flock here from other countries. How the hell is that evidence that it's the best health care? If it wasn't, why would people come here specifically for it? I wouldn't go to Mexico for health care, but they come here. The same is true with people from around the world. If you want to see what a disaster socialized medicine would be, all you have to do is look to the north. Um, er... Canada has greater mean longevity than the US, and lower infant mortality; the two best indicators of health-care quality. Hardly a "disaster", and it cost considerably less per capita than American health care. Jeez, what kindergarten did you flunk out of? And while yer raving about how "liberal" the Democrats are, just remember that Richard Nixon favored a national health care system. Our country has just gotten more stupidly right-wing since then. How much further north can I go? I'm in Canada. My health care is excellent. I'm glad you think so, but that doesn't seem to be a particularly widely held opinion. BTW, if you're from Canada, why the Hell you you even care about our politics? Nonsense! While it's definitely true that most Americans consume/waste too much, recycle too little and don't put environmental concerns above issues like values, security and economics, there is still enough concern to prevent an environmental catastrophy. You watch, once the economy recovers fully, there will be a push toward stronger environmental policies. In some ways it's sad, but environmentalism only comes to the forefront when we can afford it. That perspective is sad indeed. What can I say, that's the reality of the situation. No one in Washington - regardless of their political affiliation - is going to sacrifice the economy for the environment. That's because the politicians -- and 50% of the voting public -- are morons. "The environment" is where we live. Every householder spends good money for a vacuum cleaner and for cleaning fluids and supplies. We all go to the expense of building a garage or to the inconvenience of working outside so that we won't wreck the livingroom repairing our boats, motorcycles, or whatever. Spending money to live in a clean house is standard; how can you dum****s not see that spending money to live in a clean country is equally important? Thats't the perspective that is said. To see the economy and environment as separate things. That's why we're so screwed. They're not separate, which is the problem. They're tightly interrelated, so one affects the other. If they were separate, one could act on both without adversely affecting either. You've got it backwards. That's one reason that Ralph Nader or the Green Party will never become a substantial force in American politics; their radical agenda would devastate the economy, assuming they could get any of it through Congress. The Green Party in Canada is actually quite fiscally conservative. Good for them, but that's not really the issue down here. The problem wit the Greens here is that they are vehemently anti-business and don't seem to understand that you CAN have "environmentalism without fanaticism". Not too sure what you've got going on down south, since the US media doesn't seem too interested in talking about anyone but the Rs and Ds. You don't seem to be too informed about anything going on down here. Well, really; I *do* live here, and I am totally amazed and apalled at the phenomenal stupidity of the American public. No wonder someone who lives outside our borders cannot understand what's going on here. The President keeps talking about improving education (you remember -- the underfunded No Child Left Behind program?) In fact, in the second debate, he answered four different questions (none of which were on the topic of education) with a rant about how we need to improve education. Notice, he kept saying "we need to improve education"; he never said he was actually going to try to do it! After all, an educated public is the last thing you would want if you are the head of a deceitful Administration that relies on a public that will not research the truth, can not see through yer lies, and does not know how to apply a critical analysis to yer idiotic pronouncements. -Richard, His Kanubic Travesty -- ================================================== ==================== Richard Hopley Winston-Salem, NC, USA rhopley[at]earthlink[dot]net Nothing really matters except Boats, Sex, and Rock'n'Roll rhopley[at]wfubmc[dot]edu OK, OK; computer programming for scientific research also matters ================================================== ==================== |
"riverman" wrote in message ...
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message ... I absolutely cannot believe that THIS got fanned in this newsgroup, of ALL places!! Kindly explain what you meant by 'there was nothing before'..?? --riverman Hi there riverman, and all, Obviously there was something there before, but not a reservoir! I am in Colorado, where there is lots of WW, which is fine if you are into WW. But even the WW would and still does disappear, as the rivers run low at the end of the season. In the early season, floods were common. So the Corp of Eng. built reservoirs for flood control, and Denver Water Board, built water diversion projects. Farmers built Highline canal, to bring in irrigation water. Now WW paddlers build play parks, we boat and fish on the reservoirs, and dayhikers walk along the canal and enjoy the great outdoors. Is it a virgin wildplace experience? NO! Is it enjoyable and refreshing? Yes!! I believe that many of us paddlers would say we were born a hundred years too late! or maybe even more. You are right on wanting to enjoy the wild places. And that there are fewer and fewer. The problem I feel is when you attribute their loss to GW, and that is where you got cross wise with a bunch of us. Like a smoldering campfire the hot coals where already there. All you had to do was add a little fuel, and fan a little, or as the case may be, blow a lot of hot air! Don't be surprised if the fire builds up all of a sudden, and scorches your whiskers. To those who would question my reference to PBS tv programs, I did not cite them as factual documentation of what is going on in our environment. But as examples of the lack of agreement even among enviro types, of what is going on, how long it has been going on, the source of the problem, and the net result. Maybe the atmosphere is warming, and the ice is melting, and we may wake up some day to a different world, but we will wake up, and adapt. Unless we choose to not adapt, and choose instead to live in our blue bubble of unrealistic liberalism. In the meantime, keep on paddling, ur... maybe I should say go skiing, on all that manmade early season snow. Tinkerntom: I'm not sure where to start. You have a few valid points you bring up, but there is a lot of hyperbole and jingoism in your post as well, which makes it hard to discuss _real_ issues. Some of your valid points about rivers drying up and runoff causing floods are well taken, but you counter that with the standard Bureau of Reclamation line about flood control, recreational areas and irrigation. The benefits and shortcomings of dam projects has been well-discussed for about 20 years, with the end result being a complete reversal of position by the BuRec to where they have disbanded their dam building department. The environmental, social and ecological impacts are turning out to be much more complex than the simple 'rivers cause floods' model, and as a result, opposing parties have long ago agreed to work much more closely to evaluate the benefits and deficits of dams. Reading your post makes me think that I am discussing this with someone who has the level of understanding of this that went away in the 70s. It may have gone away in the 70's but the projects from then still exist, and is where I spend most of my paddle time. That certain BLM types can't put their heads together, and make a wooden sidewalk, doesn't change what has been done. Nor does it change what should be done in the future. In the nature of my work, I have spent time with some Federal Engineers.. One EE had trouble wiring a flashlight. So I am not convinced about the environment. In fact, I had another situation where I had to secure the EPA water test lab at Denver Fed CTR. That was a disaster. They had one door to secure, and it almost took an act of Congress to accomplish that. That point of view is reinforced with your statement about "we may wake up some day to a different world, but we will wake up, and adapt." It sounds that your nihlist point of view is to go ahead and do whatever we want, to hell with any foresight of consequences, and we'll just adapt to the results. Hmm, maybe YOU can live with that strategy, but I'm pretty sure that I can't. Personally, I want to be proactive. I want to have forsight, and to protect any dwindling resources...which includes uncontrolled rivers, uncut forests, and closed wilderness areas. I prefer diversity, abhor monoculture, and I know that there is much to be learned from natural systems that we don't yet understand, or even know about. Species are driven to extiction before we even catalogue or study them, often (or 'mostly') because of unguided and careless industrial practices. I believe in oversight by intelligent, protective organizations who share my values. I don't want to 'adapt' to a steadily deteriorating environment and steadily developing monoculture. Bravo, at least you finally told me what you believe, instead of the blame game. And I have no idea what you mean by you last statement: "unless we choose to not adapt, and choose instead to live in our blue bubble of unrealistic liberalism." The term 'liberal' has been tossed around so much that it has lost almost all meaning. In your statement, I see that you have chosen 'sides' so thoroughly that you are saying things that don't even mean anything any more.Are you saying that people who resist mindless expansion, unsupervised development and have a forward-looking attitude of conservation are 'liberals', and as such, are unable to adapt? That adapting to deteriorating situations is preferable to having some sort of guiding principles of protectionism? That good things are not worth keeping, and people who want to keep good things are 'liberals' and as such, bad? It is pretty difficult to have an intelligent, open minded discussion with someone when they are so tangled with hyperbole and rhetoric that they don't even make sense. But you are having conversation with me now, so it can't be all that bad. The blue bubble are those east and west coast states that went blue. Liberal does have a meaning, and most have found they do not want their program identified as such because they all know that it means idealistic, unrealistic, and out of touch. Liberal also means that the Federal Government is central in regulating the programs, and in this case enviromental. Originally the conservationist were involve in conserving our resources, and protecting our heritage, and then along came the Liberals who federalized the projects as a financial boon-doggle. The conservatives eventually distanced themselves, and the programs became the sole realm of the Liberal. Yes, scientists disagree. That's the essence of science. They disagree, then that spurs them on to discover more and more about what they are disagreeing about to clarify their Understanding. That is much different than saying 'because they disagree, then they have no validity.' Its the quality and intelligence of the discussion, the evidence that is produced during those disagreements that is the hallmark of scientific discourse. Being threatened by the fact that intelligent and inquisitive people are investigating something and arguing openly about their findings is another indication that you seem to be coming from a referential framework that is very well outdated....like from the Dark Ages or something. A society without disagreement sounds far too dictatorial to me. I cherish the disagreement, you should too. As long as it is mindful, based in fact and research, and with testable hyptotheses. I definitely cherish the disagreement, and would cherish any fireside chat where we could discuss our disagreements. Blaming not necessary. otherwise I would not have spent the time that I have on this thread. Yeah, things happened during Clinton's tenure. Also during Bush, Sr.s, Reagans, Carter, etc. But the hallmark of THIS Presidency is that there is less an attitude of preserving biodiversity and wilderness, and more of an attitude of opening up wilderness areas for development under the guide of 'Wise Use', to allow development of lands and resources put aside with preservation in mind by relaxing prohibitions. To allow degradion of air and water resources in favor of immediate profit, to encourage practices that might well be accelerating global issues like Global Warming. And when you take a pristine, or seldom-used undeveloped area and put in oil rigs, roads, logging trucks and relax accountability for 'management' practices, you are taking that resource through a doorway that only goes one way. You can't get your virginity back, you can't get your reputation back, and when you develop pristine areas, you can't get that pristineness back. Being able to adapt to that kind of change is not a sign of sucess. You want scorched whiskers? Just keep on ignoring environmental impacts. I had a thrill the other day, I was walking down the side of a property, and saw one lonely flower, that had been found by a butterfly. I watched it for a good 5 min. then it flew away over the rooftop. My whiskers felt a whole lot better! Thanks, Tinkerntom, aka KnesisKnosis, Life, Live it! |
Caution: snip and reply involved... "Tinkerntom" wrote in message m... "riverman" wrote in message ... Some of your valid points about rivers drying up and runoff causing floods are well taken, but you counter that with the standard Bureau of Reclamation line about flood control, recreational areas and irrigation. The benefits and shortcomings of dam projects has been well-discussed for about 20 years, with the end result being a complete reversal of position by the BuRec to where they have disbanded their dam building department. The environmental, social and ecological impacts are turning out to be much more complex than the simple 'rivers cause floods' model, and as a result, opposing parties have long ago agreed to work much more closely to evaluate the benefits and deficits of dams. Reading your post makes me think that I am discussing this with someone who has the level of understanding of this that went away in the 70s. It may have gone away in the 70's but the projects from then still exist, and is where I spend most of my paddle time. That certain BLM types can't put their heads together, and make a wooden sidewalk, doesn't change what has been done. Nor does it change what should be done in the future. This is an invitation for another conversation. I assume from your trailing sentence that you are implying that the current BLM people are clueless, and that what 'should be done in the future' is to build more dams? If this assumption is correct, then I'm going to decide not to even pursue this topic with you, as it is very thoroughly hashed out in many forums. Its a very very slippery slope, so in the spirit of maintaining any sort of reasonable discussion, we should stay off it. EOT for that topic, for me, with you. In the nature of my work, I have spent time with some Federal Engineers.. One EE had trouble wiring a flashlight. So I am not convinced about the environment. In fact, I had another situation where I had to secure the EPA water test lab at Denver Fed CTR. That was a disaster. They had one door to secure, and it almost took an act of Congress to accomplish that. Hmm, you have to connect the dots with that one for me. I won't deny that bureacracy can be a nightmare, even a waste of time and a distractor to what you are trying to accomplish. But I also can't deny that it is a real part of managing a huge nation like the US, so its a demon we must learn to work with. Are you implying that engineers are a bunch of overtrained, overspecialized, overeducated fools? That seems like a rather thin opinion of the value of education. So much for 'No Child Left Behind'.....I'd think that engineers, etc, might represent the highest form of success in our education system; one that we aspire more people to attain. Additionally, are you proposing that, because one EE could not wire a flashlight, then its possible that hundreds of thousands of scientists and research organizations in dozens of countries over several decades are all WRONG and that there really is no danger from excess pollutants, mercury in our water, deteriorating air and water quality? That all that medical evidence is wrong, that all those 'intellectual elites' are just following a Liberal goose chase, making all sorts of silly, useless rules that end up hurting our country by inhibiting development and keeping companies from making profits? Wow, now THAT is a leap.... That point of view is reinforced with your statement about "we may wake up some day to a different world, but we will wake up, and adapt." It sounds that your nihlist point of view is to go ahead and do whatever we want, to hell with any foresight of consequences, and we'll just adapt to the results. Hmm, maybe YOU can live with that strategy, but I'm pretty sure that I can't. Personally, I want to be proactive. I want to have forsight, and to protect any dwindling resources...which includes uncontrolled rivers, uncut forests, and closed wilderness areas. I prefer diversity, abhor monoculture, and I know that there is much to be learned from natural systems that we don't yet understand, or even know about. Species are driven to extiction before we even catalogue or study them, often (or 'mostly') because of unguided and careless industrial practices. I believe in oversight by intelligent, protective organizations who share my values. I don't want to 'adapt' to a steadily deteriorating environment and steadily developing monoculture. Bravo, at least you finally told me what you believe, instead of the blame game. Oh, no, don't get me wrong. There is plenty of blame to be had. I blame a lot of scientists for living off the 'research fund titty', as we called it during my 8 years as a research scientist. They have to research things that there is funding for....which means that research is not as unbiased as it should be. However, it doesn't mean research is worthless...just that it is limited. I blame the current President for allowing clean air and clean water standards to be compromised in the interest of more permissiveness for corporations to make profits. Now, don't get me wrong....profits are good; our capitalist system is based on profits. But we have to weigh things, and find a healthy balance....compromising our water, air, and environment is not really a good trade off in exchange for allowing companies to increase their profits. I blame the current majority for using unscrupulous methods to keep themselves in power, like finger-pointing at Clinton (those cheeky rascals), creating a false sense of danger from terrorist attacks in the US, and by using sensitive issues like gay marriages to divide the country and rally more support from the conservative right. I look forward to the day the CR discovers that the current batch of policians are, well, politicians. And I especially blame a LOT of fundamental conseratives for pushing their personal religious agenda on the rest of the country, and for deliberately keeping themselves simple-minded 'like a child', ignoring issues that impact all of us, even the rest of the world, and for creating a modern America that is too self-serving, isolationist and self-righteous to be a constructive or cooperative world partner. And I have no idea what you mean by you last statement: "unless we choose to not adapt, and choose instead to live in our blue bubble of unrealistic liberalism." The term 'liberal' has been tossed around so much that it has lost almost all meaning. In your statement, I see that you have chosen 'sides' so thoroughly that you are saying things that don't even mean anything any more.Are you saying that people who resist mindless expansion, unsupervised development and have a forward-looking attitude of conservation are 'liberals', and as such, are unable to adapt? That adapting to deteriorating situations is preferable to having some sort of guiding principles of protectionism? That good things are not worth keeping, and people who want to keep good things are 'liberals' and as such, bad? It is pretty difficult to have an intelligent, open minded discussion with someone when they are so tangled with hyperbole and rhetoric that they don't even make sense. But you are having conversation with me now, so it can't be all that bad. Oh, trust me on this: I find conversing with you excruciating. You might be an interesting paddling partner, but if we ever tried to develop a friendship based on our political ideoligies, we would _not_ be friends. The blue bubble are those east and west coast states that went blue. Liberal does have a meaning, and most have found they do not want their program identified as such because they all know that it means idealistic, unrealistic, and out of touch. Liberal also means that the Federal Government is central in regulating the programs, and in this case enviromental. Bravo, at least you finally defined what you mean by 'liberal'. However, be careful: 'idealistic', 'unrealistic' and 'out of touch' are entirely relative terms. Idealism can agree on in part: it be easily qualified as being a bit of a waste of time in a pragmatic (non-idealistic) society, and can even be cast as a 'wishing for what you ain't got' type of mentality. But 'unrealistic' is a bit harder to pidgeonhole, as is 'out of touch'. Personally, I think your perspectives on human adaptation, the futility of scientific research, preventative measures and the overall fundamentalist perspective are VERY unrealistic and out of touch. Just because those who propose to be supporters of that point of view won the election doesn't make the issues dissappear. When you propose pulling garbage out of urban streams as a valid alternative to preserving clean wilderness streams, I think you are WAY out of touch. Reality sucks; I'm taking about PHYSICAL realities, not POLITICAL or 'pseudo-spiritual' ones. Call me idealist or unrealistic, but the alternative is just disgusting. I cannot fathom how the conservative right gets off saying that the liberals are 'elite'....the eliteness of the CFR is staggering! Originally the conservationist were involve in conserving our resources, and protecting our heritage, and then along came the Liberals who federalized the projects as a financial boon-doggle. The conservatives eventually distanced themselves, and the programs became the sole realm of the Liberal. Hmm, thats a pretty convenient theory, but its a lot of BS. Another way to look at it is to say that we NEED to federalize certain projects to ensure that they are enforced and protected. Leaving the protection of the environment in the hands of local forces means that the people with the money and local power....often the lumber yards, timber barons, factory owners, and developers, for example....will be able to do what they want, even if it harms the interests of the general population. Modern developers are becoming expert at twisting meanings....clear-cutting and calling it 'Fire Prevention', dumping measured amouts of pollution and saying that they are proving 'cleaner water' (because they aren't dumping MORE pollutants), but it doens't change the realities. Federalizing conservation projects was Teddy Roosevelt's idea of how to ensure that things were protected 'for the common good'. Now, don't get me wrong. Timber companies can do whatever they want on their OWN land, but one of the rich heritages of the US is the common ownership of national forests and parks. Those, I want them to stay the hell out of, and I need Federal clout to do it, but I'm not getting it from THIS government. That's what is so disenfranchising. Personally, I cannot understand why you want to give some private timber company all your trees in YOUR national forest, and get pretty much _nothing_ in return. Seems pretty foolish to me. I had a thrill the other day, I was walking down the side of a property, and saw one lonely flower, that had been found by a butterfly. I watched it for a good 5 min. then it flew away over the rooftop. My whiskers felt a whole lot better! Well, that's cute. --riveramn |
"Wilko" wrote in message ... Tinkerntom wrote: I don't doubt, that there are many Americans, the great silent majority, who have already faded from view. This thread, illustrates this well. Where are the Americans? But know they are out there, waiting to make their presence known if any act as if they don't exist! I wouldn't be surprised if they are ashamed for people like you who smear their nationalistic, overly religious and extreme right wing sauce over everything that is (or was) good and still uncorrupted about the U.S.. I'm not sure 'ashamed' is the right word. Trying to reason with a fundamentalist is one of the most arcane and frustrating things in the world...they get a certain glee out of causing you frustration, because that feeds their self-righteousness. Which, in turn, causes more frustration. Then they mistake that childness gleefulness for some sort of reinforcement of their correctness. No, its not shame. Its abject frustration. Folks would rather leave people like that, standing in the rain proclaiming what a sunny day it is, all alone. --riverman |
Hi Larry, appreciate hearing from you again. It is amazing to hear
from these foreigner, who don't like how things turned out in our election. wilko wrote: And euthanasia, pornography, prostitution, soft drugs use etc. etc.. Let's make people criminals for doing something that others don't want and therefore want to forbid everyone else from doing. If he wants to do those things, let him stay at home! We always hear about the ugly American going all over the world, offending host countries. Well it seems there is enough ugly to go around, at least to Canada and Netherlands. I think you will find that these are illegal to some extent in most Western countries outside of Holland. While I'm fully in favor of legalizing "victimless" crimes (most of these are not really, but a different discussion), these laws are pretty common in most Western countries. BTW, pornography is pretty available thoughout most of the US. Despite the rhetoric, there is little censorship, although restrictions on were it can be shown are common. Political censorship in the US is rare. One can find just about any opinion in the world published or broadcast somewhere in the US. Not to mention the unequal rights for women as promoted by the religious right: women belong at home, taking care of the children. Geez! This seems to be a very acceptable stereotype, my wife is very independent professional. Try telling her to "submit" and cover with the Burka (sp?) My wife belongs for one of those "evangelical religions". Yet many, if not most of the women in her church work outside of the home, many with good careers. While I'm in the camp that believes that mindless superstition and senseless rituals are all that really distinguishes from the animals, I can find no suppression of womens rights in the vast majority of Fundamentalist churches, excluding abortion. Yeah, already there is not much left to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority, except a lot of money to afford expensive lawyers who know how to talk a bent stick straight, let alone to protect the maority from an extreme right wing minority who have the government's ear. Democracy my ass. "the right wing" is overblown. No matter how he is protrayed in the press, old George is Middle of the Road. He is more conservative socially than Clinton, but politically there isn't much difference. The only difference even foreign policy wise is that Clinton was an Internationalist and George doesn't always care if the European community cares about what he does. The very independence displayed by "George", is what made America great, and the Euros, are still kicking themselves for letting US get away. They figure they would not be having all the problems they have if America was still a Colony! They eventually just make fun of how he speaks, and that is real International of them. If they have trouble understanding West Texas, then they need to brush up their language skills! If they don't like how the election went, as I recall, they don't get to vote! Thanks for the refreshing comments Tinkerntom, aka KnesisKnosis, Life, Live it! |
|
in article , Tinkerntom at
wrote on 11/17/04 10:08 AM: Well Keenan, I'll try again to clarify a few of these issues. You continue to mention the puritans, and I got to thinking that you being in Canada have a different view of them than we down here in the Colonies. They were the religious fanatics of the day, that incited the riot we call the fight for independence. Of course to us they are just a bunch of nice folks who wear funny hats, and eat turkey. You seem to have an obsession with pilgrims. This would also suggest why you have a problem with the Constitution, and think it got things wrong, and should be redone. Well, it would have been nice if someone could have foreseen what the NRA was going to do with that "right to bear arms" line! You are still licking your wounds over that little fracus back in 1776. Sorry you lost that one too! Uh? Also abortion. And censorsihp. Abortion has been discussed before, but censorship is new. Who got censored? Um. You are aware that since 9/11 the entire mainstream American media has been little more than George W's personal mouthpiece? As it happens, I am not gay, but hatred against gay people is not "hypothetical" for me any more than racism against black people or unequal pay for women is "hypothetical." What happens to you in US politics is all Hypothetical to you. It is not to those of us who live here. Nevertheless, hatred against gay people is not "hypothetical" for me any more than racism against black people or unequal pay for women is "hypothetical." Isn't choice great! The Puritans came here inorder to exercise free choice, and in so doing, chose to live in a land where others chose differently. However it is also a democratic land where the majority rules, and the minority is protected from the tyranny of the majority, by the courts. Much to the chagrin of George and friends who are furious that the courts occasionally strike down some of their puritanical efforts. But a few changes to the courts, and whammo, the powers of hate will have the congress, the senate, the presidency, and the courts! I'm glad that you saw what I said about the courts. They have proven through the years to be a moderating factor in US politics. So the Constitution does work, and there is hope for the Dems, and the forest! and you! The constitution is just a piece of paper. If George has control over the government and the courts, the constitution ain't gonna jump out of its case and beat him (more) senseless. The Majority is currently identified as the moral mojority, and so is opposed to the immoral minority. I am not saying that this is true or right, just that it is reality. Whatever that means. Think about it, maybe you will eventually get it. It's not happening. The minority, now has the choice, of dealing with it, or slinking away. I admire you that you are not slinking! That things are difficult for you, no doubt! We were there for a long time, and only recently have rallied the troops to take significant ground. Now is not the time for us to get lazy either. We will keep pressing on, and you can choose to get onboard or not. That is your choice! Um. Half of your own country is not on board, and just about all of the rest of the world is not on board. And you are not going to convince me to hate people just because a lot of you have gotten your **** together with the hatred of others as your focus. All your counts don't count in US politics. The only poll that counts is the one on Nov 2, and is only valid for four years! Nevertheless, you are not going to convince me to hate people just because a lot of you have gotten your **** together with the hatred of others as your focus. Our choice is that we do not want to have Gay Marriages blighting the landscape What is your problem with gay marriages? Asked and Answered, you still don't get it! Nope. You never answered. nor wanton abortion polluting our collective conscious. again Asked and Answered! Nope. You never answered. But you are OK with young girls in the alley with coat hangers, right? Of course not, but what a false dilemna. Really! Before Roe v. Wade, there were probably some coat hanger abortions. But not nearly the number of abortions that go on today. Ironically, I heard that the majority of babies aborted would probably have been raised in a Liberal home, and would have swollen your voting ranks now by 20 million. I'nm not sure that they are "my" voting ranks because you still haven't told me what a liberal is. Is anyone who thinks George W is a dangerous twit a liberal? The Dems could have used those votes, and would have defeated Bush. You have cut yourself off at the knees. Again, I'm Canadian, and I'm not a Democrat. I may or may not be a "liberal" but you still haven't told me what that is. Will you find a way to deny rich people access to abortions too, or is this another in your list of policies designed to advance hate against the less fortunate. The rich have money to go where they want, to do what ever they want. Right. They aren't going to planned parenthood clinics for an abortion. Right. However, we do not choose to have the bill footed by Uncle Sam either. If the less fortunate can't afford an abortion, let them figure out how to keep from getting pregnant. You know it still is a mystery. Ah! More of this fascinating logic. A 16 year old girl who gets date-raped but happens to have a rich daddy gets her abortion. The 16 year old from the other side of the tracks should be forced to have the baby because she doesn't have the money to go to a private clinic. So now you've got a 16 year old mother with no money raising a child with no money. And somehow you think this is a better financial plan than making abortion accessible to the poor? Regarding blacks feeling intimidated at the polling place, I feel that is generally a bogus charge. Blacks feel intimidated at all sorts of places in America, the polling booth certainly being one of the places where said intimidation is at its best. There may be places this occurs, it is a big country, but I am sure we would have heard more, if it was rampant. From who? Fox News!?!? But it sure sounds politically powerful. And there is the core of the problem for Liberals. They keep trying to find some magic bullet to propel themselves into power, without really having a viable platform. Now that would be really hijacking the election, if they could have pulled it off, like feeding bogus exit polls to their sheep, which made them feel real good for awhile, but the let down was a real bummer. Of course if you can blame it on some "old white dudes," hey, what a coup. Keep on believeing this BS, if it makes you feel better. No idea what you are talking about there, Again Clueless! That's one possibility. Or, you might not be making any sense. but you do realize that the election was a rather close one, and that it is going to be difficult to keep people in a state of perpetual fear, or even another four years? Even Americans will get bored with the so-called "war on terror." This is an important point, by the way. Mm. Only y'all ain't born with equality of opportunity. But I spose that's just some crackpot liberal thinkin' there eh? For a change, I think you got it right, sort of! We obviously are not born with equal opportunity Praise geezus. but then that is not what the Constitution is talking about. The Constitution says that we are all born equal Then the Constitution is wrong. You might want to fix it. I think you fixed up some other parts that were wrong. Like the value of a black person? That sort of thing. and that there are certain inalienable rights. Health care, or driving a Rolls, and living in Aspen, is not one of them. What about the right to put all your money offshore and not pay even as much tax as the poorest person? live in Colorado, but not Aspen. I drive a hardly rolls, and I have to pay for my own health insurance. I have a black neighbor who has a newer car, - a management job, that I expect provides insurance, and both of us could go up to ski in Aspen. Ain't America great, independent of our skin color, we can go any place we choose. The only thing that really holds us back, is our own vision of who we are and where we want to be! Too put it bluntly, that's an idiotic oversimplification. Your kids, or the kids born to your neighbour, are not going to have the same barriers to success as some kid growing up in a **** poor neighbourhood where the police are afraid to go and the school is a war zone. It's easy to have a nice vision when you are starting from the top of the mountain. I am hardly at the top of the mountain, but as I understand it How have you come to this understanding? anyone who really wants to can climb the mountain Interesting. So the kid who risks his life just to walk in the school doors in one of those rundown black only neighbourhoods just needs to "choose" to climb the mountain and he'll end up at Harvard alongside the nice little rich kid from the private school in the gated community. That is what made the US unique! and people come still everyday, and are willing to do whatever it takes to stay. Sorry to tell you, but it's not unique to the US. Anyone will go anywhere that puts them in a better position than where they are now. Luckily most voters realized that the above program is unacceptable, if for no other reason, than who was going to pay for it? The promise was that taxes would be raised on the rich. That works until there are no more rich, and then they come after you and me, or at least me! No thankyou! LOL. Again, y'all were sayin' somethin' 'bout settin' up a false dilemma? It is not a false dilemna, kerry said, he was going to raise the taxes on the rich. As I recall, the VERY rich. That little group that has most of the money but pays hardly any taxes. Now you said earlier, that the rich don't pay taxes, because they put them off shore. As if raising the amount due will encourage them to bring their investments back on shore. Oh, I see, you should encourage social responsibility in the very rich not by closing loopholes, but by making the tax system in America as attractive as an offshore island...brilliant! That would mean, Kerry would not be able to raise the promised taxes to support the promised programs, so they would fail, unless he raise taxes on me. I don't have off shore investments. The best I could hope for is that Uncle Sam would take money from one of my pockets, and put it back in another. This of course after he took his cut. Then all these programs would fire up inflation, which is nothing more than a hidden tax as my dollar buys less. Now I am sure you will probably say Huh! so maybe we will talk more about that later. Mm, no, that's too ridiculous for even a Huh! I am self-employed, which means I get to pay all my own taxes, and I know how much I pay. I have paid a lot for a long time, and I am not rich. I would not mind being rich, mind you, then I could maybe afford to take a vacation or move up to Canada. But then I would spoil it for you, and that luckily for you, is not a false dilemna. You should come up here. See if you can pick out the gay married people from the gay unmarried people the straight unmarried people and the straight married people. I never claimed that I could pick out gays from staight, married or unmarried. Unless I see two or more of them convorting together What's convorting look like? And how could you tell the married convorters from the unmarried convorters? and then there is no doubt that all could ID them! So what is the point? This line of reason does not make me want to have gay marriages in my community. If gays want to live together, that is up to them, but we do not have to sanction them as a married couple. Ahhh....so it's about sanctioning. Reminds me of black/white marriages. Y'all have got a lot of growing and maturing to do. Get over yourselves. What's the "straight marriage" divorce rate now? 50%? How's adultery doing? Are y'all making Jesus proud? Maybe less time should be spent worrying about gay couples ruining marriage, and a little more time spent realizing that it's already in a shambles and the idea that marriage needs to be protected from gay people is almost as silly as it is sad. |
in article , riverman at wrote
on 11/17/04 12:59 PM: "Wilko" wrote in message ... Tinkerntom wrote: I don't doubt, that there are many Americans, the great silent majority, who have already faded from view. This thread, illustrates this well. Where are the Americans? But know they are out there, waiting to make their presence known if any act as if they don't exist! I wouldn't be surprised if they are ashamed for people like you who smear their nationalistic, overly religious and extreme right wing sauce over everything that is (or was) good and still uncorrupted about the U.S.. I'm not sure 'ashamed' is the right word. Trying to reason with a fundamentalist is one of the most arcane and frustrating things in the world...they get a certain glee out of causing you frustration, because that feeds their self-righteousness. Which, in turn, causes more frustration. Then they mistake that childness gleefulness for some sort of reinforcement of their correctness. No, its not shame. Its abject frustration. Folks would rather leave people like that, standing in the rain proclaiming what a sunny day it is, all alone. --riverman The United States of Canada is the answer...I'm telling ya. Leave Jesusland to Tinkerntom. |
"riverman" wrote in message ...
"Wilko" wrote in message ... Tinkerntom wrote: I don't doubt, that there are many Americans, the great silent majority, who have already faded from view. This thread, illustrates this well. Where are the Americans? But know they are out there, waiting to make their presence known if any act as if they don't exist! I wouldn't be surprised if they are ashamed for people like you who smear their nationalistic, overly religious and extreme right wing sauce over everything that is (or was) good and still uncorrupted about the U.S.. I'm not sure 'ashamed' is the right word. Trying to reason with a fundamentalist is one of the most arcane and frustrating things in the world...they get a certain glee out of causing you frustration, because that feeds their self-righteousness. Which, in turn, causes more frustration. Then they mistake that childness gleefulness for some sort of reinforcement of their correctness. No, its not shame. Its abject frustration. Folks would rather leave people like that, standing in the rain proclaiming what a sunny day it is, all alone. The word is childish glee, and yes I like standing, and walking and running and dancing in the rain, especially after being out in the desert for a long time. It may be frustrating to you, but I am happy. And I am not alone. There are more of us, than there are of you. Is that simplistic, yes. But it use to be the other way around, and then you were happy. Tell me riverman, see keenans following post, and then tell me you would go up to the United States of Canada. Are you a traitor to the United States of America? The election is less than a month past, and it seems some are ready to throw in the towel, and listen to the Sirene call, which always lands them on the rocks. Keenan has definitely shown his hand, I have drawn him out for all to see, and I choose not to play his game, how about you? Yes it is a game, and I have been playing you for a while. You ask me in a separate post where I am coming from, and you can know that you may never know, but you can know that I am out here with a bunch of my friends. (I will say this, I am a Chess Grand Master, and I love the game!!!!) Thanks, Tinkerntom, aka KnesisKnosis, Life, Live it! |
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message m... Wilko, I welcomed you to this particular section of this thread. I had seen some of your post in other sections, and only wanted to say hi, since I had not previously met you. No offense met or exclusiveness pretended. Again, Hi and Welcome. That you have been a member of this paddling community as you say, "for the better part of ten years, and active participant for about seven years now," I am also glad to know. We need all the old salts we can get! Also that you are interested in US politics, I think is great! We need you to hold the mirror, so that we can see how others see us. I would just ask that you hold it still! When you get all worked up, your hand shakes, and it sounds like you have some partisan biases, and liberal bends! Sort of distorts the view! Excuse me but how did you decide that Wilko should be unbiased? Has he no right to an opinion or a to take a particular stance because he's not American? Oh, wait, I understand now. His views do not sit well with you, therefore he should not express them. Whatever. |
"rick etter" wrote in message hlink.net... "Keenan Wellar" wrote in message news:BDC15794.11B17%UseAddressOnWebPageProvided@ho tmail.com... in article , Tinkerntom at wrote on 11/17/04 7:14 AM: Keenan wrote: Do you think so? It's hard to say. The media censorship is unbelievable. You would hardly know any Americans have been killed! Ah, maybe I have stumbled upon the problem, "media Censorship." Now I haven't heard of such down here,(certainly there are many voices reminding us of how many have been killed and wounded) What voices? I get all the US networks, as well as CNN etc. Which station can I tune into tonight to get a list of those killed today, and perhaps a reaction from their family members, or scenes from their funerals? It's really no secret that since 9/11 the entirety of the mainstream American media is just an extenstion of the White House. ================= ROTFLMAO What a hoot!!! You're right...most of the non-mainstream media should be included in that statement too...although most of it is more overtly neo-con. |
"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message ... "rick etter" wrote in message hlink.net... "Keenan Wellar" wrote in message news:BDC15794.11B17%UseAddressOnWebPageProvided@ho tmail.com... in article , Tinkerntom at wrote on 11/17/04 7:14 AM: Keenan wrote: Do you think so? It's hard to say. The media censorship is unbelievable. You would hardly know any Americans have been killed! Ah, maybe I have stumbled upon the problem, "media Censorship." Now I haven't heard of such down here,(certainly there are many voices reminding us of how many have been killed and wounded) What voices? I get all the US networks, as well as CNN etc. Which station can I tune into tonight to get a list of those killed today, and perhaps a reaction from their family members, or scenes from their funerals? It's really no secret that since 9/11 the entirety of the mainstream American media is just an extenstion of the White House. ================= ROTFLMAO What a hoot!!! You're right...most of the non-mainstream media should be included in that statement too...although most of it is more overtly neo-con. ================= Not a clue in that head of yours, is there? |
"rick etter" wrote in message ink.net... "Keenan Wellar" wrote in message ... "rick etter" wrote in message hlink.net... "Keenan Wellar" wrote in message news:BDC15794.11B17%UseAddressOnWebPageProvided@ho tmail.com... in article , Tinkerntom at wrote on 11/17/04 7:14 AM: Keenan wrote: Do you think so? It's hard to say. The media censorship is unbelievable. You would hardly know any Americans have been killed! Ah, maybe I have stumbled upon the problem, "media Censorship." Now I haven't heard of such down here,(certainly there are many voices reminding us of how many have been killed and wounded) What voices? I get all the US networks, as well as CNN etc. Which station can I tune into tonight to get a list of those killed today, and perhaps a reaction from their family members, or scenes from their funerals? It's really no secret that since 9/11 the entirety of the mainstream American media is just an extenstion of the White House. ================= ROTFLMAO What a hoot!!! You're right...most of the non-mainstream media should be included in that statement too...although most of it is more overtly neo-con. ================= Not a clue in that head of yours, is there? Probably not much brain left to wash in yours... |
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message m... Yes it is a game, and I have been playing you for a while. You ask me in a separate post where I am coming from, and you can know that you may never know, but you can know that I am out here with a bunch of my friends. (I will say this, I am a Chess Grand Master, and I love the game!!!!) Ahh, the Grand Masturbator, finally exposed. Have a nice day, troll. You and all your invisible friends. --riverman |
Hi riverman again, sounds like you are not ready to go up north. That
is good, because we definitly need you down here. The butterfly story, was sad, not cute. It was the first and only butterfly I saw all summer! As a kid growing up here, I use to see lots. I do enjoy our converstion more now, and I am sorry that it is so painful for you. But you will get stronger for the exercise. I went to Colo Sch of Mines in late 60' early 70', so I tip my hand a little to you. Studied Geophysics, physics, etc. worked for a few years in oil field. Since you invited me, I'll stay around a little longer if this tipping does not shut you down. This is an invitation for another conversation. I assume from your trailing sentence that you are implying that the current BLM people are clueless, and that what 'should be done in the future' is to build more dams? If this assumption is correct, then I'm going to decide not to even pursue this topic with you, as it is very thoroughly hashed out in many forums. Its a very very slippery slope, so in the spirit of maintaining any sort of reasonable discussion, we should stay off it. EOT for that topic, for me, with you. I personally don't care to see a whole lot more dams, though I thought that Two Forks could have been ok. If a dam is needed, I still believe they should be considered, though I realize that radical environmentalism would not accept that option. Hopefully, that doesn't mean that you don't want to talk to me any longer? In the nature of my work, I have spent time with some Federal Engineers.. One EE had trouble wiring a flashlight. So I am not convinced about the environment. In fact, I had another situation where I had to secure the EPA water test lab at Denver Fed CTR. That was a disaster. They had one door to secure, and it almost took an act of Congress to accomplish that. Hmm, you have to connect the dots with that one for me. I won't deny that bureacracy can be a nightmare, even a waste of time and a distractor to what you are trying to accomplish. But I also can't deny that it is a real part of managing a huge nation like the US, so its a demon we must learn to work with. Are you implying that engineers are a bunch of overtrained, overspecialized, overeducated fools? That seems like a rather thin opinion of the value of education. So much for 'No Child Left Behind'.....I'd think that engineers, etc, might represent the highest form of success in our education system; one that we aspire more people to attain. Additionally, are you proposing that, because one EE could not wire a flashlight, then its possible that hundreds of thousands of scientists and research organizations in dozens of countries over several decades are all WRONG and that there really is no danger from excess pollutants, mercury in our water, deteriorating air and water quality? That all that medical evidence is wrong, that all those 'intellectual elites' are just following a Liberal goose chase, making all sorts of silly, useless rules that end up hurting our country by inhibiting development and keeping companies from making profits? Wow, now THAT is a leap.... I am saying, I do not have a lot of faith in scientific bureaucrats, or bureaucratic scientist. They all have their personal agendas, especially if they are tapped into the "titty" you speak of in a bit. We all have our personal agendas, just don't ask me to pay for one that I don't believe in, and then act like I am happy about it. That point of view is reinforced with your statement about "we may wake up some day to a different world, but we will wake up, and adapt." It sounds that your nihlist point of view is to go ahead and do whatever we want, to hell with any foresight of consequences, and we'll just adapt to the results. Hmm, maybe YOU can live with that strategy, but I'm pretty sure that I can't. Personally, I want to be proactive. I want to have forsight, and to protect any dwindling resources...which includes uncontrolled rivers, uncut forests, and closed wilderness areas. I prefer diversity, abhor monoculture, and I know that there is much to be learned from natural systems that we don't yet understand, or even know about. Species are driven to extiction before we even catalogue or study them, often (or 'mostly') because of unguided and careless industrial practices. I believe in oversight by intelligent, protective organizations who share my values. I don't want to 'adapt' to a steadily deteriorating environment and steadily developing monoculture. Bravo, at least you finally told me what you believe, instead of the blame game. Oh, no, don't get me wrong. There is plenty of blame to be had. I blame a lot of scientists for living off the 'research fund titty', as we called it during my 8 years as a research scientist. They have to research things that there is funding for....which means that research is not as unbiased as it should be. However, it doesn't mean research is worthless...just that it is limited. No problem so far! I blame the current President for allowing clean air and clean water standards to be compromised in the interest of more permissiveness for corporations to make profits. Now, don't get me wrong....profits are good; our capitalist system is based on profits. But we have to weigh things, and find a healthy balance....compromising our water, air, and environment is not really a good trade off in exchange for allowing companies to increase their profits. Now things are getting a little more sticky, how we weigh things seems to be an issue, and how we find a healthy balance???? I blame the current majority for using unscrupulous methods to keep themselves in power, like finger-pointing at Clinton (those cheeky rascals), creating a false sense of danger from terrorist attacks in the US, and by using sensitive issues like gay marriages to divide the country and rally more support from the conservative right. I look forward to the day the CR discovers that the current batch of policians are, well, politicians. And Kerry was not a politician? I just prefer this politician to the alternative. Kerry made all kinds of promises, but left me feeling cold, doubting that they were nothing more than pie in the sky. At least with Bush, I knew what I was getting, I believe he is a man of his word, and that is the character MV part that was important to me. He does what he says, and says what he does. Where is the lie in that? We know going in that he is willing to promote his environmental agenda, which is not as protective as some in the past. What is a desirable agenda is a different matter, and probably not dependent on who is in the Whitehouse. And I especially blame a LOT of fundamental conseratives for pushing their personal religious agenda on the rest of the country, and for deliberately keeping themselves simple-minded 'like a child', ignoring issues that impact all of us, even the rest of the world, and for creating a modern America that is too self-serving, isolationist and self-righteous to be a constructive or cooperative world partner. Now I will tip my hand a little further, I am a Christian. Surprise!!! but then that is a word that is probably more misunderstood than Liberal, and a close second, Conservative fundementalist. I will try to make some distinctions, realizing we all have our own filters. Since we are talking about the USA, I will refraim from speaking about Europe, or even Canada. I live in Colorado, so I should restrict myself from even talking about the south, or the Northeast, or the west coast. Matter of fact I can't even speak about the church up the street that I pass everyday, and there is the rub. I can only speak about myself, and my personal relation with God and religion. Whenever I hear someone blaming, and pointing, and spouting about something or someone else, especially when they lump the religious fundementalist altogether. I get sort of defensive, if you haven't noticed. As a Christian, I am not afraid or ashamed to share where I am at. I do not feel that you should not talk about religion, or politics, in a polite society. That part of arcane Victorianism should have gone away a long time ago. Neither do I believe that I should shove my religion down someones throat. I have a hard enough time figuring it out for myself, than to expect anyone else to appreciate me forcing it on them. As a Christian, I should be a force for good in the world I live. One, as light to see by, and to show what is good and bad. Two, as salt, to preserve what is good, and to increase the savor of it. Three, a soldier, to fight that which is bad. Now that is quite simplistic, and obviously there are many shades in the spectrum of Christians. As a Christian, I believe that God has a plan that includes me, and where I am in the world. He uses me to fulfil his plan, and that there are Christians everywhere. He calls us fishers of men, not that we are fishermen, but we are the net, with which He fishes. And He has the whole world in His net! In the world, we are described as pilgrims, (for keenan if he reads this, yes I have a thing for pilgrims) that this is not our home, we are just passing through. Then we are also described as Ambassadors of his Kingdom here in this world. This all brings me to the connection with the current political situation. You should not look at the fundementalist as a monolith. There are as many kinds of fundementalist as there are fundementalist! You could not destroy us by taking out 1, or a 100. There would be 200 to take their place. Sort of like the hammer toy that kids play with, where when you hit one peg, two more come up. You are right on when you say that is very frustrating, if you think you can get rid of us. You can not immunize against us because we are all different, and we reproduce very rapidly and virulently. In fact, each generation, gets stronger as they respond to the hostile environment of the world. And we are achieveing critical mass, which should be a scary thought to any who oppose us. Now combine all this into a political agenda, and it becomes powerful in this political world in which we live. This critical mass is currently aligned with the conservative agenda of the Republican, in opposition to the Democrats and their Liberal agenda. The issues that are currently hot: character, abortion and gay marriage. We believe this is not a personal agenda so much as a mandate from God. You may not like it, you may not agree, but I am just telling you how I feel a lot of us believe, and you are left to deal with it. A couple side note, we have not always been aligned with the Republican, so they should be careful themselves, to not take us for granted, or to take advantage of us. We have not always been in agreement amongst ourselves as to where we should align. We have not always been correct in our alignment, and hopefully adjusted our alignment sooner than later. So we need to be checking with HQ on a regular basis. But woe unto the party that ignores us. We are not primarily activist, but as Ambassadors we observe, and represent an option to the world system. We influence the world indirectly, as we present the claims of Gods Kingdom on the lives of men and nations. We also have to ultimately answer to God for our actions and lives that we live. As you can see, this is not a simple thing. We are in the world, but not of the world. We are servants of God, but also called Ambassadors of His Kingdom. I have not said anything about going to church etc. because I do not want to make you feel that I am pushing religion down your throat. In fact, this has little with going to church, and more with going to God. I have been on the receiving end, and did not care for the treatment. I know that others may not be as sensitive, I can not speak for them, but I will apolgize for them if you have been offended. You may still ask what bearing does this have on dam building, roads, and cutting old growth forest. We are also stewards of all that we believe God made, which is everything. We are responsible to protect and preserve all the good things that God has blessed us with. But as stewards, we are also responsible for the responsible use of those same thing. We are not just to put them in a showcase, but use them for the good of all mankind. Gods main concern is not the forest, but the house that shelters, and even the fire that burns to warm the cold. God loves his creation, but most of all God loves man, and all is here for the benefit of man, so that man would acknowledge God. As I paddle along, I am so glad that God made water, and Kayaks, and made me so that I enjoy them. I love clean water, and the mountains, and the beautiful forest. I want to be able to enjoy them for a long time to come. But I also am responsible to preserve them. I am also responsible to preserve little unborn lives, babies, that God Loves as he loves all men everywhere. Abortion is not an acceptable alternative, when there are so many alternatives. There are tragic situations in life, but none so tragic to justify taking a babies life. I am also responsible to maintain and preserve the social order that God created in creation. Marriage between other, than a man, and a woman, is a violation of that order. I realize that there are different situations, and difficult situations, but God established the order for the preservation of society. Those societies that have chosen to violate that order, are doomed. There are many ways to violate Gods social order, same sex marriage is just the current issue. A part of social order, is personal responsiblity. When President Clinton lied to us about his involvement with Monica, all kinds of warning sirens went off. I would even say that I believe it would be hard to find anyone that would say it was Okay. We intrinsically know it was not. The specifics of the BJ are troubling enough, but to have a person in such an incredible position of trust and power, unable to exercise personal discipline, made us all feel vulnerable. He weakend not only himself, but the Democratic party as reflected in the last two elections, but also the nation. We as Christians could not endorse or sanctify his behavior, but instead have to speak out about it, for the very sake of preserving society. Now if the current Republican administration was able to tap into the above agenda, I do not see that as being unscrupulous. The Democrats would have done the same if they could have figured out how. It is the political process. For them to continue to alert us to the possibility of further terrorist attack, I hope the warning was bona fide, but whether or not, the Dems would have done the same, if in the place to do so. Politician manipulate to gain power. No real revelation here, and we all know how the game is played! Considering briefly the Liberal/ Conservative issue, they are just different sides of the political coinage of our system. Yeah I confess it has been fun using the L word on some of you, but only because you are so sensitive, and I promise not to stop. It is very effective way to work some up into a real lather. (Hi Keenan) The fact that you are so bothered shows me that it has not lost its meaning, and you know what it means, as you try to distance yourselves from it. Especially now when the other side of the coin is so bright and popular. There was a time when being conservative, was anathama. And I have no idea what you mean by you last statement: "unless we choose to not adapt, and choose instead to live in our blue bubble of unrealistic liberalism." The term 'liberal' has been tossed around so much that it has lost almost all meaning. In your statement, I see that you have chosen 'sides' so thoroughly that you are saying things that don't even mean anything any more.Are you saying that people who resist mindless expansion, unsupervised development and have a forward-looking attitude of conservation are 'liberals', and as such, are unable to adapt? That adapting to deteriorating situations is preferable to having some sort of guiding principles of protectionism? That good things are not worth keeping, and people who want to keep good things are 'liberals' and as such, bad? It is pretty difficult to have an intelligent, open minded discussion with someone when they are so tangled with hyperbole and rhetoric that they don't even make sense. But you are having conversation with me now, so it can't be all that bad. Oh, trust me on this: I find conversing with you excruciating. You might be an interesting paddling partner, but if we ever tried to develop a friendship based on our political ideoligies, we would _not_ be friends. None of this had to make sense, it just had to get under your skin. I did not understand that we are working on a thesis or disertation, that I had to, or wanted to present all kinds of data and info supporting my position ad infinitum. Most of these issues are hashed out somewhere else, by someone better prepared than this poor paddler. I just like to hear the squealing, especially like when you get dumped in the icy cold water, and you find yourselves all wet! As some of you definitly are. The blue bubble are those east and west coast states that went blue. Liberal does have a meaning, and most have found they do not want their program identified as such because they all know that it means idealistic, unrealistic, and out of touch. Liberal also means that the Federal Government is central in regulating the programs, and in this case enviromental. Bravo, at least you finally defined what you mean by 'liberal'. However, be careful: 'idealistic', 'unrealistic' and 'out of touch' are entirely relative terms. Idealism can agree on in part: it be easily qualified as being a bit of a waste of time in a pragmatic (non-idealistic) society, and can even be cast as a 'wishing for what you ain't got' type of mentality. But 'unrealistic' is a bit harder to pidgeonhole, as is 'out of touch'. Personally, I think your perspectives on human adaptation, the futility of scientific research, preventative measures and the overall fundamentalist perspective are VERY unrealistic and out of touch. Just because those who propose to be supporters of that point of view won the election doesn't make the issues dissappear. When you propose pulling garbage out of urban streams as a valid alternative to preserving clean wilderness streams, I think you are WAY out of touch. Reality sucks; I'm taking about PHYSICAL realities, not POLITICAL or 'pseudo-spiritual' ones. Call me idealist or unrealistic, but the alternative is just disgusting. I cannot fathom how the conservative right gets off saying that the liberals are 'elite'....the eliteness of the CFR is staggering! When you win, you are in an elite crowd, you don't have to pretend! That is reality also. That does not mean you are right, but it does feel good. The reality of the environment, physical reality, has always to deal with the political, and political with spiritual. You tried to separate them, and that is probably part of the explanation for the lost election. If you disassociate the issues, you will present yourself to the voter as disassociated, and you will attract disparate and unintegrated voters (the 2004 Democratic Party.) If on the other hand, you can intergrate the issues, you will draw people to together who are able and willing to integrate their voice (the 2004 Republican Party.) Originally the conservationist were involve in conserving our resources, and protecting our heritage, and then along came the Liberals who federalized the projects as a financial boon-doggle. The conservatives eventually distanced themselves, and the programs became the sole realm of the Liberal. Hmm, thats a pretty convenient theory, but its a lot of BS. Another way to look at it is to say that we NEED to federalize certain projects to ensure that they are enforced and protected. Leaving the protection of the environment in the hands of local forces means that the people with the money and local power....often the lumber yards, timber barons, factory owners, and developers, for example....will be able to do what they want, even if it harms the interests of the general population. Modern developers are becoming expert at twisting meanings....clear-cutting and calling it 'Fire Prevention', dumping measured amouts of pollution and saying that they are proving 'cleaner water' (because they aren't dumping MORE pollutants), but it doens't change the realities. Federalizing conservation projects was Teddy Roosevelt's idea of how to ensure that things were protected 'for the common good'. Now, don't get me wrong. Timber companies can do whatever they want on their OWN land, but one of the rich heritages of the US is the common ownership of national forests and parks. Those, I want them to stay the hell out of, and I need Federal clout to do it, but I'm not getting it from THIS government. That's what is so disenfranchising. Personally, I cannot understand why you want to give some private timber company all your trees in YOUR national forest, and get pretty much _nothing_ in return. Seems pretty foolish to me. Now we are getting to the heart of the issue for you, and I have little to disagree, if you could just stay here. Understand, I believe that this President has very little to to with these issue, or for that matter whomever is in the Whitehouse. "ensure that things were protected 'for the common good'... In looking over your previous statement, I think that this is where we get in problem. Most of the other thing you say are illustrative of what you think is for the good. I would not draw all the lines in the same place as you, and I would not draw them in permant ink. I would like to go into this more, but will save it for our next conversation. Respectfully, Tinkerntom, aka KnesisKnosis, Life, Live it! |
Cut and snip employed..
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message m... Hi riverman again, sounds like you are not ready to go up north. That is good, because we definitly need you down here. Why, hello again Tinkerntom. If your plan with this post was to lure me out again, you have succeeded. Don't get too gloaty about it. You don't research much, do you? That statement above shows that you are so focused on your own agenda that you aren't even considering who you are talking to. How long have you been a Denver locksmith, by the way? The butterfly story, was sad, not cute. It was the first and only butterfly I saw all summer! As a kid growing up here, I use to see lots. Hmmm, and any theories on why that may be? Or are you happy to just not be interested? I do enjoy our converstion more now, and I am sorry that it is so painful for you. But you will get stronger for the exercise. Tinkerntom, please don't fraternize me. Its impolite, and I'm far too old to be spoken to like a child. I went to Colo Sch of Mines in late 60' early 70', so I tip my hand a little to you. Studied Geophysics, physics, etc. worked for a few years in oil field. Since you invited me, I'll stay around a little longer if this tipping does not shut you down. We have geology in common, as a google search will show you, although I did not go into Petroleum, unlike my roommate who is a major environmental researcher at ColoState. And lay off the dramatics. You're new here, so people don't know much about you, but in time people get to know each other. Saying that you are 'tipping' is trying to say how much in control of these conversations you are. Again, don't be fraternizing. Additionally, are you proposing that, because one EE could not wire a flashlight, then its possible that hundreds of thousands of scientists and research organizations in dozens of countries over several decades are all WRONG and that there really is no danger from excess pollutants, mercury in our water, deteriorating air and water quality? That all that medical evidence is wrong, that all those 'intellectual elites' are just following a Liberal goose chase, making all sorts of silly, useless rules that end up hurting our country by inhibiting development and keeping companies from making profits? Wow, now THAT is a leap.... I am saying, I do not have a lot of faith in scientific bureaucrats, or bureaucratic scientist. They all have their personal agendas, especially if they are tapped into the "titty" you speak of in a bit. We all have our personal agendas, just don't ask me to pay for one that I don't believe in, and then act like I am happy about it. Uh huh. So it sounds like you feel that all science is biased, discreditable and laced with a personal agenda. Sounds like you are conveniently rejecting anything that doesn't fit into your OWN personal bias. Funny how that cuts both ways, eh? Next time you make use of anything at all that scientific research has produced, say a little thank you prayer that not everyone gets to cut off funding for anything they don't believe in. Hell, it was attitudes like that that got Galileo in trouble. It might very well be attitudes like that that get US in trouble. I blame the current President for allowing clean air and clean water standards to be compromised in the interest of more permissiveness for corporations to make profits. Now, don't get me wrong....profits are good; our capitalist system is based on profits. But we have to weigh things, and find a healthy balance....compromising our water, air, and environment is not really a good trade off in exchange for allowing companies to increase their profits. Now things are getting a little more sticky, how we weigh things seems to be an issue, and how we find a healthy balance???? Hmm, maybe some scientific research? I'll play a game with you, Tom. You go out and find all the research you can that supports, for example, that Global Warming is not a real threat. And I'll go out and find all the research that I can which says it IS. Then we compare all our data, and try like hell to find biases and faults in each other's. We keep each other accountable. Then we both go out and do some more investigating to prove or disprove our claims. THAT is called 'scientific research'. OR we can do it your way: we can declare that all this hullaballoo is really a biased waste of time, that we don't want to listen to those silly scientists because, since they can't agree, there really must not be a problem. And the ones who DO agree should not be funded because we don't agree with them. Besides, trying to reduce emissions (which isn't necessary since there really ISN'T any pollution, and anyhow, trees cause much more pollution than humans ever did) is just too inconvenient and puts too much financial stress on businesses to ask them to clean up their own mess (which isn't a mess since we don't want to believe it is), and anyway, the are more than willing to just be careful themselves about how much they pollute. I blame the current majority for using unscrupulous methods to keep themselves in power, like finger-pointing at Clinton (those cheeky rascals), creating a false sense of danger from terrorist attacks in the US, and by using sensitive issues like gay marriages to divide the country and rally more support from the conservative right. I look forward to the day the CR discovers that the current batch of policians are, well, politicians. And Kerry was not a politician? I just prefer this politician to the alternative. Kerry made all kinds of promises, but left me feeling cold, doubting that they were nothing more than pie in the sky. At least with Bush, I knew what I was getting, I believe he is a man of his word, and that is the character MV part that was important to me. Well, you're right on that. You know what you are getting....you are getting someone who does not accept responsibility for his own decisions ("It was the Intelligence communities fault for giving me bad data! How was I to know?"), who has NEVER run a successful business and is completely fiscally unresponsible (turning a positive cashflow into a record deficit, three years in a row!), who has singlehandedly destroyed the international reputation and goodwill of the US, who prides himself in not reading, not taking his constituents into account when he makes decisions, and who prides himself in making FAST decisions, and not changing his mind even in the face of new evidence. And I especially blame a LOT of fundamental conseratives for pushing their personal religious agenda on the rest of the country, and for deliberately keeping themselves simple-minded 'like a child', ignoring issues that impact all of us, even the rest of the world, and for creating a modern America that is too self-serving, isolationist and self-righteous to be a constructive or cooperative world partner. Now I will tip my hand a little further, I am a Christian. Surprise!!! No joking?? Wow, what a stunner! but then that is a word that is probably more misunderstood than Liberal, and a close second, Conservative fundementalist. I will try to make some distinctions, realizing we all have our own filters. Since we are talking about the USA, I will refraim from speaking about Europe, or even Canada. I live in Colorado, so I should restrict myself from even talking about the south, or the Northeast, or the west coast. Matter of fact I can't even speak about the church up the street that I pass everyday, and there is the rub. I can only speak about myself, and my personal relation with God and religion. Whenever I hear someone blaming, and pointing, and spouting about something or someone else, especially when they lump the religious fundementalist altogether. I get sort of defensive, if you haven't noticed. As a Christian, I am not afraid or ashamed to share where I am at. I do not feel that you should not talk about religion, or politics, in a polite society. That part of arcane Victorianism should have gone away a long time ago. Neither do I believe that I should shove my religion down someones throat. I have a hard enough time figuring it out for myself, than to expect anyone else to appreciate me forcing it on them. As a Christian, I should be a force for good in the world I live. One, as light to see by, and to show what is good and bad. Two, as salt, to preserve what is good, and to increase the savor of it. Three, a soldier, to fight that which is bad. Now that is quite simplistic, and obviously there are many shades in the spectrum of Christians. As a Christian, I believe that God has a plan that includes me, and where I am in the world. He uses me to fulfil his plan, and that there are Christians everywhere. He calls us fishers of men, not that we are fishermen, but we are the net, with which He fishes. And He has the whole world in His net! In the world, we are described as pilgrims, (for keenan if he reads this, yes I have a thing for pilgrims) that this is not our home, we are just passing through. Then we are also described as Ambassadors of his Kingdom here in this world. This all brings me to the connection with the current political situation. You should not look at the fundementalist as a monolith. There are as many kinds of fundementalist as there are fundementalist! You could not destroy us by taking out 1, or a 100. There would be 200 to take their place. Sort of like the hammer toy that kids play with, where when you hit one peg, two more come up. You are right on when you say that is very frustrating, if you think you can get rid of us. Strange that you don't employ that same filter to Liberals. But I have to admit, that hammer analogy has some real appeal.... You can not immunize against us because we are all different, and we reproduce very rapidly and virulently. In fact, each generation, gets stronger as they respond to the hostile environment of the world. And we are achieveing critical mass, which should be a scary thought to any who oppose us. Now combine all this into a political agenda, and it becomes powerful in this political world in which we live. This critical mass is currently aligned with the conservative agenda of the Republican, in opposition to the Democrats and their Liberal agenda. The issues that are currently hot: character, abortion and gay marriage. We believe this is not a personal agenda so much as a mandate from God. You may not like it, you may not agree, but I am just telling you how I feel a lot of us believe, and you are left to deal with it. A couple side note, we have not always been aligned with the Republican, so they should be careful themselves, to not take us for granted, or to take advantage of us. We have not always been in agreement amongst ourselves as to where we should align. We have not always been correct in our alignment, and hopefully adjusted our alignment sooner than later. So we need to be checking with HQ on a regular basis. But woe unto the party that ignores us. Ugh. You have described exactly what is wrong with your kind of fundamentalism. You have to 'check in with HQ on a regular basis'. Assuming that you all don't get exactly the same fax from God, that means you have to be led, and told what is the 'alignment' by your church leaders. The very essence of a free society is that people get to make their own decisions, but instead a whole lot of religious fundamentalists are happy to be sheep, told what the current belief is supposed to be. Now, spare me all the dogma about 'search your heart' and 'being led by the Holy Spirit'....I hate all that code-speak that religious folks use. I was gagging at the 'light, salt, soldier, fish, Ambassadors' analogies. And, yes, I know that your preacher will tell you how the minions of Satan hate that kind of talk, but guess what, the US isn't your church. even more, there are constitional boundaries set up specifically to protect us from folks like you. I'll even tip my hand to you....I am pretty disgusted by religious fundamentalists, and I openly reject their kind of prosteletyzing. And guess what else? There are a LOT of US, too. And we are already fuming pretty bad about how you snaked your way into this last election, and my guess is that, now that you have all shown yourselves and your agenda, it won't last. You forget, all 51% of Bush's votes werent from the moral majority. We are not primarily activist, but as Ambassadors we observe, and represent an option to the world system. We influence the world indirectly, as we present the claims of Gods Kingdom on the lives of men and nations. We also have to ultimately answer to God for our actions and lives that we live. As you can see, this is not a simple thing. We are in the world, but not of the world. We are servants of God, but also called Ambassadors of His Kingdom. I have not said anything about going to church etc. because I do not want to make you feel that I am pushing religion down your throat. In fact, this has little with going to church, and more with going to God. I have been on the receiving end, and did not care for the treatment. I know that others may not be as sensitive, I can not speak for them, but I will apolgize for them if you have been offended. You may still ask what bearing does this have on dam building, roads, and cutting old growth forest. We are also stewards of all that we believe God made, which is everything. We are responsible to protect and preserve all the good things that God has blessed us with. Ahh, here we go. Finally. But as stewards, we are also responsible for the responsible use of those same thing. We are not just to put them in a showcase, but use them for the good of all mankind. Gods main concern is not the forest, but the house that shelters, and even the fire that burns to warm the cold. God loves his creation, but most of all God loves man, and all is here for the benefit of man, so that man would acknowledge God. So, you are 'protecting and preserving' these things by cutting them down for the use of people. That's that doublespeak that is so disgusting. It also implies two things that you, again, conveniently igno a) you have an INCREASED RESPONSIBILITY to ensure that you are not polluting the air, water, etc, since God wants you to protect it. b) you have an INCREASED RESPONSIBILTY to ensure that the consumed resources are, indeed, being used for the benefit of man. Somehow, lining some fatcats pockets off the public lands doesn't seem like that was what God had in mind, eh? As I paddle along, I am so glad that God made water, and Kayaks, and made me so that I enjoy them. I love clean water, and the mountains, and the beautiful forest. I want to be able to enjoy them for a long time to come. But I also am responsible to preserve them. So where does tossing out the Kyoto protocol come into that? And again, how does ignoring conservationism, which has exactly the same responsibility, come into it? You reject those Liberal Conservationists because they are blocking you from developing that land that you are supposed to preserve....or was it to be a good steward of so that you can make Wise Use of it, and develop it for nice, warm houses? But what about your kids, and their kids?? How can they make use of it if you cut it down and develop it? And what about the pollution? Oh, this is all so confusing... I am also responsible to preserve little unborn lives, babies, that God Loves as he loves all men everywhere. Abortion is not an acceptable alternative, when there are so many alternatives. There are tragic situations in life, but none so tragic to justify taking a babies life. GAG me!! This is such hyperbole!! Never an alternative? Preventing women from having abortions when their own lives are in danger?? Forcing children to be born into households that cannot afford to feed themselves?? Prohibiting abortions when it is known that the fetus will be severely deformed, or even die soon after birth?? Just because it gets difficult to make decisions about grey areas doesn't mean that we should avoid doing it. And hiding behind God doesn't help, either. I am also responsible to maintain and preserve the social order that God created in creation. Marriage between other, than a man, and a woman, is a violation of that order. Un huh. Your opinion, as told to you by your preacher. I bet God would want people to marry the person they love, rather than have them live outside the sanctity of marriage. And if a loved one dies, I bet God would want the loved partner to have legal rights. And what if that same couple decided to adopt a child whose parents chose not to abort them? Would God implode? Oh, and what about those of us who DON'T believe in God? Why should some ficticious invisible friend of yours get to make rules about someone else's life?? I realize that there are different situations, and difficult situations, but God established the order for the preservation of society. Those societies that have chosen to violate that order, are doomed.There are many ways to violate Gods social order, same sex marriage is just the current issue. Yeah, that's what we are so afraid of. If you would kindly present us with a list of all the issues, in the order you plan on bringing them up, we might be more able to assess your agenda. A part of social order, is personal responsiblity. Again, doesn't sound like it. Sounds like it is a religious responsibility that YOU are forcing on the rest of us. That old doublespeak again. When President Clinton lied to us about his involvement with Monica, all kinds of warning sirens went off. I would even say that I believe it would be hard to find anyone that would say it was Okay. Hell, I'll say it was OK. To evade it, that is. It was none of the countries damn business...it had nothing to do with running the US, and you are being led blind if you see it, and your reaction to it, as anything but a political manipulation by the right wing. They saw their opening, created an issue, and tried to run with it. Clinton was exponerated, get over it. We intrinsically know it was not. The specifics of the BJ are troubling enough, but to have a person in such an incredible position of trust and power, unable to exercise personal discipline, made us all feel vulnerable. Not all of us. You *choose* to feel vulnerable. What were you so afraid of, that in his 'lack of personal discipline' he would demonstrate the ability to severely limit personal freedoms, make decisions based on bad evidence, endanger the lives of American soliders in an unprovoked war, generate a worldwide distrust and derision of the country, and drive the national debt through the ceiling? Its strange how you overreact to someone who stuck a cigar up a woman's vagina then declined to discuss it on national TV, but turn a complete blind eye to someone who might very well be undermining the US for years to come. Bush makes me feel *very* vulnerable! Not because of what he might be capable of doing, but for what he HAS done and what he promises to CONTINUE doing!! He weakend not only himself, but the Democratic party as reflected in the last two elections, but also the nation. We as Christians could not endorse or sanctify his behavior, but instead have to speak out about it, for the very sake of preserving society. That's a bit melodramatic, don't you think? No one asked you to endorse or sanctify his behavior. And putting Bush in office is not a solution to whatever you feel about Clinton, because Clinton wasn't running for president. That's like saying you voted for Eisenhower because Lincoln won the war. Now if the current Republican administration was able to tap into the above agenda, I do not see that as being unscrupulous. The Democrats would have done the same if they could have figured out how. It is the political process. For them to continue to alert us to the possibility of further terrorist attack, I hope the warning was bona fide, but whether or not, the Dems would have done the same, if in the place to do so. Politician manipulate to gain power. No real revelation here, and we all know how the game is played! This is completely nonsense, and the lowest form of defense. "Its right because you would have done the same thing." For starters, you cannot support that claim in any way. Secondly, that never excuses things. But at least you are admitting that it could have all been a lie. But Conservatives lying to get in power is somehow OK....funny that old doublespeak again. How's the view from your moral high ground? Considering briefly the Liberal/ Conservative issue, they are just different sides of the political coinage of our system. Yeah I confess it has been fun using the L word on some of you, but only because you are so sensitive, and I promise not to stop. It is very effective way to work some up into a real lather. (Hi Keenan) The fact that you are so bothered shows me that it has not lost its meaning, and you know what it means, as you try to distance yourselves from it. I'm not distancing myself from it. I'M A LIBERAL, THROUGH AND THROUGH. I believe in personal freedom, I believe that the government has the responsibility to protect social interests from self-serving interests, and I believe in fiscal accountability. I believe in protecting the environment, I believe that public and private corporations and that the top 5% of wealthholders in America have a social responsibilty to the bottom 95%, or else they can try to get that rich in some other country. I believe that we all should donate time and energy to preserving the environment, and that as a nation as a whole, we have it FAR too good and that other nations have their own soverign rights to choose their own governments and social systems. I believe that other people are entitled to be just as misled by their religions as our people are, and I believe that fundamentalists of all flavors ought to have their asses kicked by a fat lesbian named Bruno. I am just sick of hearing people destroy the multi-party system by using the term derogatorily. Do some research on how that term got to be villified, and you'll discover that you are just a puppet, being played by the political strategists who make you think that you actually believe, or understand, what you are saying. Its precisely the same strategy that make the Japanese 'gooks', the Germans 'krauts', the Russians 'commies' and the Chinese 'chinks'. Prejudice....very Christian of you. And why do you hate America so much? I cannot fathom how the conservative right gets off saying that the liberals are 'elite'....the eliteness of the CFR is staggering! When you win, you are in an elite crowd, you don't have to pretend! That is reality also. That does not mean you are right, but it does feel good. Ah ha. Thank you for admitting that you are not right. The reality of the environment, physical reality, has always to deal with the political, and political with spiritual. You tried to separate them, and that is probably part of the explanation for the lost election. If you disassociate the issues, you will present yourself to the voter as disassociated, and you will attract disparate and unintegrated voters (the 2004 Democratic Party.) If on the other hand, you can intergrate the issues, you will draw people to together who are able and willing to integrate their voice (the 2004 Republican Party.) Originally the conservationist were involve in conserving our resources, and protecting our heritage, and then along came the Liberals who federalized the projects as a financial boon-doggle. The conservatives eventually distanced themselves, and the programs became the sole realm of the Liberal. Hmm, thats a pretty convenient theory, but its a lot of BS. Another way to look at it is to say that we NEED to federalize certain projects to ensure that they are enforced and protected. Leaving the protection of the environment in the hands of local forces means that the people with the money and local power....often the lumber yards, timber barons, factory owners, and developers, for example....will be able to do what they want, even if it harms the interests of the general population. Modern developers are becoming expert at twisting meanings....clear-cutting and calling it 'Fire Prevention', dumping measured amouts of pollution and saying that they are proving 'cleaner water' (because they aren't dumping MORE pollutants), but it doens't change the realities. Federalizing conservation projects was Teddy Roosevelt's idea of how to ensure that things were protected 'for the common good'. Now, don't get me wrong. Timber companies can do whatever they want on their OWN land, but one of the rich heritages of the US is the common ownership of national forests and parks. Those, I want them to stay the hell out of, and I need Federal clout to do it, but I'm not getting it from THIS government. That's what is so disenfranchising. Personally, I cannot understand why you want to give some private timber company all your trees in YOUR national forest, and get pretty much _nothing_ in return. Seems pretty foolish to me. Now we are getting to the heart of the issue for you, and I have little to disagree, if you could just stay here. Understand, I believe that this President has very little to to with these issue, or for that matter whomever is in the Whitehouse. No, I disagree wholeheartedly and with passion and concern. This president has a tremendous responsibity to stop sitting on his hands and saying 'aww, there ain't no problem' and 'if there IS a problem, the Dems caused it!" and to be wise, a good steward, and DO something about it. Wisely. If he's too stupid or stubborn to make decisions, he should employ a LOT of scientists and let them advise him. But what he IS doing is making it worse. He has the worse environmental record of the last 50 years, just when the research and evidence is showing us that things are starting to get quite bad. "ensure that things were protected 'for the common good'... In looking over your previous statement, I think that this is where we get in problem. Most of the other thing you say are illustrative of what you think is for the good. I would not draw all the lines in the same place as you, and I would not draw them in permant ink. I would like to go into this more, but will save it for our next conversation. We'll see. --riverman |
"Dave Van" wrote in message link.net...
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message m... Wilko, I welcomed you to this particular section of this thread. I had seen some of your post in other sections, and only wanted to say hi, since I had not previously met you. No offense met or exclusiveness pretended. Again, Hi and Welcome. That you have been a member of this paddling community as you say, "for the better part of ten years, and active participant for about seven years now," I am also glad to know. We need all the old salts we can get! Also that you are interested in US politics, I think is great! We need you to hold the mirror, so that we can see how others see us. I would just ask that you hold it still! When you get all worked up, your hand shakes, and it sounds like you have some partisan biases, and liberal bends! Sort of distorts the view! Excuse me but how did you decide that Wilko should be unbiased? Has he no right to an opinion or a to take a particular stance because he's not American? Oh, wait, I understand now. His views do not sit well with you, therefore he should not express them. Whatever. Dave, I don't recall saying that Wilko should be unbiased. On the contrary, I welcomed his participation. I am not opposed to his bias, in fact his bias is the mirror that we can examine ourselves in. We need his input, we value what he has to say. However, in the aliteration of holding a mirror for someone else, the holder has to hold the mirror steady. There is a certain amount of distortion in the best of mirrors, for example Hubble, that is the bias. Now if the mirror is being jerked around, that has nothing to do with bias. That would just be meaness, and would render the mirror useless, to both parties. I can deal with the bias, but if someone is just being mean and cantankerous, they would just be wasting our time. Now I am not saying that Wilko was even doing that, and that is why I was more than happy to write a lengthy post to him. I am glad for the foreign commentary. I am concerned should there be any advocatation for overthrowing or causing harm to our wonderful country. There has been some from other posters, encouraging the destruction of US and forming, US of Canada. That is going beyond the bounds of a civil discussion. I have not heard such from Wilko. What I have heard, is a one voice from a very large geopolitical area, and I by no means feel that he represents even the majority where he is. If he chooses to voice his opinion for whatever motivation, he is free to do so. And we are free to filter, and adjust for the distortion of the mirror. But please don't be mean. I am enjoying the conversation to much, hold the mirror steady. Thanks, Tinkerntom, aka KnesisKnosis, Live, Live it! |
Hey Rick, I am not familiar with this one, educate me please!
ROTFLMAO What a hoot!!! Thanks, TnT |
"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message m...
"rick etter" wrote in message ink.net... "Keenan Wellar" wrote in message ... "rick etter" wrote in message hlink.net... "Keenan Wellar" wrote in message news:BDC15794.11B17%UseAddressOnWebPageProvided@ho tmail.com... in article , Tinkerntom at wrote on 11/17/04 7:14 AM: Keenan wrote: Do you think so? It's hard to say. The media censorship is unbelievable. You would hardly know any Americans have been killed! Ah, maybe I have stumbled upon the problem, "media Censorship." Now I haven't heard of such down here,(certainly there are many voices reminding us of how many have been killed and wounded) What voices? I get all the US networks, as well as CNN etc. Which station can I tune into tonight to get a list of those killed today, and perhaps a reaction from their family members, or scenes from their funerals? It's really no secret that since 9/11 the entirety of the mainstream American media is just an extenstion of the White House. ================= ROTFLMAO What a hoot!!! You're right...most of the non-mainstream media should be included in that statement too...although most of it is more overtly neo-con. ================= Not a clue in that head of yours, is there? Probably not much brain left to wash in yours... Keenan, it seems that you are not really concerned with the environment, or how the US election turned out, or any of the other issues being discussed in this thread. They are just cover for your petty attempt at anti-USA retoric. Yell and rant away, stomp your feet, and Know that we are still happy down here. Also know that I am down here praying for you that you will get a Life, and live it. Jesus came to give you Life! Respectfully, Tinkerntom, aka KnesisKnosis, Live, live it! |
Larry Cable wrote:
....stuff deleted No one as attempted to overturn Roe vs. Wade, I think that partial birth abortion should be outlawed anywhere that considers itself civilized though, and I haven't seen any state enforce consensual sodomy between adults for years. The real problem with these issues are that they are just high enough on everyones radar to be annoyed by attempts of activist courts to impliment social legislation. However, all civilizations and countries control sexual conduct in some manner, so the ban on Gay marriage rates right up there with bigamy and polandry as important issues to me. The partial birth abortion is rarely used. When it is, it is used only when the mother is at serious health risk. I have yet to hear that it was used as a birth control method, though I would agree that in this instances, it is not acceptible. When there is medical reason for a procedure, however, it is the doctor, not the insurance company, or some unknowledgeable senator or layman that should make that decision. Environementist are panicked because Bush probably won't push thier agenda. Oops, but they didn't vote or support him, so that's kind of normal. That doesn't mean that he is going to rape the environment. Most "Sportsmans"groups support the Bush administration because he has dumped a lot of money into habitat improvement and conservation set asides, preaches access to public land and hasn't gutted the Clean Air and Clean Water acts, despite what has been said. Current EPA website even shows an effort to combat the "Greenhouse Gases". It probably won't be wonderful, but it won;t be a disaster either. Bush and company have been adding anti-environmental riders to legislation from his first day in office. He HAS gutted the clean air and water acts and made it possible for oil companies (amazing how many times that comes up) to pollute in greater quantities than they have since the mid 1970's. He does not "preach access to public land," he preaches exploitation and destruction of it. I haven't seen so much doublespeak since I read 1984. Those of us who are paying attention to this individual are, however, more concerned about how he has placed restrictions on free speech (ex: arresting people for non-violent protest on the sidewalk at the Republican Convention), established an investigative arm that is worthy of the gestapo (check out the wrong books from the library and the feds don't even need to swear out a warrant to investigate you, all in the name of heimat, excuse me, "homeland" security), and attempted to institute policies that are clear violations of the separation of church and state, and you have a civil rights record that is actually worse than his environmental one. As Ben Franklin said, "those who would sacrifice security for freedom deserve neither." Next time, if there is a next time to vote, consider that before you run in fear from a terrorist act. ....stuff deleted Rick |
Tinkerntom wrote:
Thanks, Tinkerntom, aka KnesisKnosis, Live, Live it! Tinkerntom, I have just one (off-topic to this thread) question: do you paddle? -- Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe ---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.--- http://wilko.webzone.ru/ |
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message m... Hey Rick, I am not familiar with this one, educate me please! ROTFLMAO You won't like it... Rolling On The Floor Laughing My Ass Off..... What a hoot!!! Something said that's funny, stupid, and easy to make fun of... ie, anything Keenan says... Thanks, TnT |
in article , Tinkerntom at
wrote on 11/18/04 10:09 PM: "Keenan Wellar" wrote in message m... "rick etter" wrote in message ink.net... "Keenan Wellar" wrote in message ... "rick etter" wrote in message hlink.net... "Keenan Wellar" wrote in message news:BDC15794.11B17%UseAddressOnWebPageProvided@ho tmail.com... in article , Tinkerntom at wrote on 11/17/04 7:14 AM: Keenan wrote: Do you think so? It's hard to say. The media censorship is unbelievable. You would hardly know any Americans have been killed! Ah, maybe I have stumbled upon the problem, "media Censorship." Now I haven't heard of such down here,(certainly there are many voices reminding us of how many have been killed and wounded) What voices? I get all the US networks, as well as CNN etc. Which station can I tune into tonight to get a list of those killed today, and perhaps a reaction from their family members, or scenes from their funerals? It's really no secret that since 9/11 the entirety of the mainstream American media is just an extenstion of the White House. ================= ROTFLMAO What a hoot!!! You're right...most of the non-mainstream media should be included in that statement too...although most of it is more overtly neo-con. ================= Not a clue in that head of yours, is there? Probably not much brain left to wash in yours... Keenan, it seems that you are not really concerned with the environment, or how the US election turned out, or any of the other issues being discussed in this thread. They are just cover for your petty attempt at anti-USA retoric. I'm not anti-USA. Yell and rant away, stomp your feet, and Know that we are still happy down here. A lot of people are extremely unhappy. Also know that I am down here praying for you that you will get a Life, and live it. Jesus came to give you Life! Jesus weeps for you. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:02 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com